Adam Vaughan

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members often complain about two things: either we are consulting and are going too slow, or we have not consulted and are going too fast. I think we have hit the right balance here. We have put together comprehensive pay equity legislation after substantial consultation over the last three years with stakeholders, unions, private, public and governmental sources.

With regard to amendments, we have all been around committees in this place. We all see sort of a consensus emerge on how to fix a particular bill. The opposition presents one way to fix it, and the government produces a different way. The opposition's proposal might be defeated, but a very similar proposal will have the support of the government side. It is really a question of detail, sometimes, in those decisions.

As for pay equity, it is essential that we get it done in this term of Parliament. Women have waited too long. I was here in 2005 as a reporter when the NDP members rolled the dice and decided they could get a better deal under Stephen Harper than under Paul Martin. They not only collapsed the Kelowna accord, they not only collapsed an extra $2 billion for housing, they not only collapsed a national child care strategy, they collapsed comprehensive pay equity legislation as well.

Members will say that they did not roll the dice and that Canadians changed the government. Sure, Canadians changed the government, but at some point, the NDP is going to have to take responsibility for what it does, not what it aspires to do. In this case, it collapsed those pieces of legislation, and it can live with that. That is its party record.

I would also remind the party members opposite of the zero dollars they wanted to spend on housing this year or the $25 million they wanted to spend on indigenous infrastructure, a grand total of $375 million. If that is what they thought was the scope of the problem with indigenous communities across this country, they either did not care, did not know, or did not want to act.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, making sure that Canada's fiscal house is in order is critically important. That is why we have made sure that we sustain the discipline so that our debt-to-GDP ratio continues to trend in the right direction and is in fact the lowest ratio in the G7. It is one of the things that has given us the capacity to stimulate the economy and grow those jobs.

The member opposite talks about jobs created. What he did not talk about was the jobs lost as not only a global recession hit this country but the Conservative austerity measures plunged this country into a second recession, the only G7 country that managed to achieve that. As a result, the net number of jobs that came to Canada were significantly reduced. It is why we have the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years right now, which is a good anti-poverty strategy.

As it relates to the deficit the party opposite talks about, there are lots of different deficits within a complex economy. For example, there is an infrastructure deficit. The previous government left us with a $660-billion infrastructure deficit. That meant that expressways were falling down, bridges were not being built, transit was not being delivered, water was not clean, highways were broken, and housing was not being fixed or repaired. That deficit was real, because it impacted people's lives and the economy and productivity of this country. The Conservatives passed that on to this government and future generations.

The books need to be brought back into balance. However, it is not just the books as they relate to deficits and debt. It is also the social deficit, the environmental deficit and the infrastructure deficit of this country. One reason the Conservative Party was tossed out was that those other deficits were atrocious and required change. The change people are getting includes sustained and focused investments that are not only good for the people using the infrastructure and social pieces of government but are good for the country, because they grow—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand today to support the initiatives of our government that are expressed through the bill as we implement the budget promises we made last spring, and to deliver real hope, real change and real possibilities for growth in the country for some of Canada's most vulnerable populations.

The main focus of my comments will be on the poverty reduction strategy. It is Canada's first-ever poverty reduction strategy with real targets and real tools to measure not just poverty as it exists across the country, but also as it exists in specific regions, centres, and within specific populations.

The new strategy is critical, because one of the goals of the government—and we hear the phrase repeated often—is not just growing a stronger middle class, but the support that is required to help people join that middle class, to lift themselves out of poverty by giving them the tools they need, the support they require and the opportunities they desire to make sure their lives are transformed. This is critical for the success of our country, because as we build stronger families and healthier communities, we also build more resilient children. That gives us hope for the future that the next generation will have the capacity to provide much more support for all of us as we move forward together as a country.

To set the context, we need to understand that the poverty reduction strategy, while it is a new strategy enunciated in policy, is not something we just started to begin work on. The day we took office, we began making investments right across the country to make a transformational change in people's lives. In fact, well over 600,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result of the steps taken by our government. That does not include the close to 500,000 new full-time jobs that have been created, which have also created a situation allowing people to avoid poverty. I say this because the prevention of poverty is just as important as its alleviation.

The $22 billion we invested includes about $5.6 billion invested in housing. As soon as we introduced our first budget, we tripled the transfers to the provinces and doubled the investments in community organizations that are leading the fight against homelessness.

We also introduced the Canada child benefit and changed its profile. Not only is it a more generous benefit, but it is also now tax free and means-tested, which means that those with the greatest need will get the greatest support. Unlike the previous government, we do not send the cheques to millionaires and we do not tax the dollars after they have arrived in families' bank accounts. This has probably been the most profound change in social policy in this country in a generation, and probably the most important component of lifting those children I just referenced out of poverty.

Additionally, changes have been made to the CPP as we move forward to secure people's retirement funds. We have also boosted the GIS to make sure that single women, in particular, who are often alone at the end of their lives, get the boost they need to make sure that their incomes are better supported, giving them the capacity to maintain their living standards.

In addition, $7.5 billion has been invested in early learning and child care. These transfers were delivered directly to the provinces, who since the collapse of the previous national day care strategy have evolved their programs and now have a more asymmetrical situation across the country. As we invest that $7.5 billion over the next 10 years, it has already started to sustain existing spaces, provide new capital for expansion, and also provide that critical expansion of the child care system. In fact, in Ontario, 100,000 new spaces of subsidized, quality, affordable child care have been created as a direct result of the investments in partnership with the provinces.

For the first time ever, child care support has also been directed toward indigenous organizations to make sure that distinction-based programs, led, designed and delivered by indigenous communities for their children, are now part of the program. We have also made those investments, which are having an impact on families outside the mainstream programs that have existed for a generation in our country.

On top of child care, substantial investments have also been made in indigenous communities, both on and off reserve, both inside and outside of treaties, both in rural-remote regions and urban centres. These investments have led to cleaner drinking water, better housing, better education and, most importantly, better health programs being provided. In particular on Jordan's principle, in comparison with the approval and enrolment rates under the previous government, which in 10 years managed to get only one child served under Jordan's principle, we are talking about thousands and thousands being served every single year.

These are transformational changes, which have set the base for an even more aggressive push to eliminate even more of the poverty we see in our country, because we cannot sustain poverty in a country as rich as ours with a clean conscience.

As we set the new poverty standard and come across a standard way of measuring it so that we can have a common base to understand exactly whom we lifting out of poverty and how our programs are having that impact, we are often criticized for not having announced new programs simultaneously to our establishing this poverty line.

Let me assure members that there are already programs and investments forecast into the future that have not been included in the 650,000 calculation we have already used to address the people we have lifted out of poverty. For example, we have the signing of bilateral agreements. I was just in the Northwest Territories doing exactly this, signing bilateral agreements on the Canada housing benefit.

The Canada housing benefit is a new way to subsidize people's living arrangements, giving agency and choice to low-income Canadians to choose the housing that best suits their needs. Those subsidies do not kick in until next year, but will have a dramatic impact on the quality of life and alleviation of poverty among those people who are in core housing need. In fact, when one includes all the other components of the national housing strategy, we seek to support well over 650,000 Canadians, and closer to 700,000. Then we get into repairs and some of the other programs that are part of the 10-year forecast.

Those dollars are locked in and are built on top of the $5 billion we have already spent. We have also reprofiled those dollars to make them more flexible, in particular in the way in which they impact women and children, to make sure that those housing needs are addressed specifically through a national housing strategy. They were not in the previous iteration of the program. The new national housing strategy re-profiles that $40 billion and projects it into those people's lives as yet another way to alleviate poverty.

This particular bill also addresses pay equity. I have heard the members opposite complain that the bill is too big. It covers seven distinct pieces of legislation, but the piece on pay equity covers the entire breadth of federally regulated and federally administered pay programs. It is a big, complex bill because pay equity touches virtually every corner of the government, as well as significant parts of the country's private sector. That is why the bill is 850 pages long.

The bill is a comprehensive all-of-government, all-of country approach to pay equity. We are very proud to push that forward, because pay equity, again, is one of the most important tools we can put together to ensure that we reduce poverty, in particular of women but also of families and Canadians right across the country. Pay equity, giving a fair chance to everybody, in particular women, benefits us all. As women's economic situations solidify and strengthen in this country, small and medium businesses and all our social dynamics strengthen as women become more powerful. That is one of the most important reasons to support pay equity. It is good for everyone, even those who are not women.

Additionally, we have also included an indexing formula in the Canada child benefit so that it will grow over time for families to ensure that inflation does not claw back the good, strong investments we have made to eradicate child poverty. Again, those dollars are not calculated as part of our poverty reduction plan, which was in place prior to the strategy, but will have an impact afterward.

Then of course there is the national housing strategy, the $40-billion investment. I have heard some suggest that the way to do a housing program, which we have seen in the platforms of previous parties as they tried to get elected to Parliament, is to put the money upfront and just let the program drift off into the future. As someone who has done much of the consultation work with the minister and CMHC to put this strategy together, I can say that the reality is that the advice we were given by academics, housing providers, municipal partners and provincial agencies was that the best way to build a housing program was to invest heavily to start and then grow the investment as the system gets bigger over time.

In other words, if a riding were to receive a thousand units of public housing this year, a thousand next year and a thousand the year after that, its housing needs would go from 1,000 to 2,000 to 3,000. Repair needs grow with that, as do subsidy requirements, and if the program is not back-end loaded, one will not be able to build a successful system while building good, strong housing programs. That is why the program not only lasts 10 years, past two elections, but also grows over time to support a bigger, stronger, more robust capacity to house Canadians in need.

Put together, this constitutes our government's strategy for housing, poverty and improving the lives of indigenous people, women and many of the marginalized and racialized communities in this country. We have focused our programs based on data, the information we have received from stakeholders, and partnerships with indigenous, municipal, provincial and territorial governments. In total, the early investments, the project investments, the new tools to measure, study and drive data into the system to alleviate poverty are the reasons this bill is large, why are ambitions are just as big, and most importantly, why the achievements are so profound.

We are very, very proud of this particular piece of legislation. I hope that all of Canada can support it. I hope that everyone in Parliament can support it. This is delivering real change, real housing and real support to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and I encourage all parliamentarians to support it as such.

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I agree. I do not think we have framed it as a national strategy as such, but the $5.6 billion in additional investments we have made in that industry constitutes that national strategy. The changes we are making around e-vehicles and the adaptation of the infrastructure program to accommodate that is part of that strategy. When we look at the investment specifically in bus fleets across this country to build and support the industry that delivers those buses in Canada, it is part of an automotive strategy that includes the future and is forward looking. There is a report coming forward to the Minister of Transport to further those aims.

To frame it as a strategy is a fair question. Perhaps it would be more obvious to the industry and more obvious to Canadians that there is a concerted effort on this side of the House to make sure that we build not only the strongest auto industry and auto sector in this country's history but the greenest one, because that is where the future is leading us, and we must help Oshawa get there with the rest of the successful communities right across this country.

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will not try to figure out what the difference is between reality and what is happening now. Those are usually one and the same.

When I was in New York this summer at the United Nations high-level meetings on sustainable development goals, GM was there. The plant GM was talking about as its pace-setting plant in terms of environmental performance, the elimination of waste and adding productivity to its product line was the plant in St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

When the member opposite lists a half-dozen companies, which we are very concerned about when they close, she also has to understand that there are 500,000 new jobs being created simultaneously, above and beyond those losses. If we look at the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario, it is starting to gather steam exactly where jobs are being lost.

Yes, there is a transition happening in the economy. Technology is extraordinarily disruptive, and there are certainly trade winds that have been difficult to manage over the last year and a half. However, I will put our record of job creation up against the Conservatives' record any single day. Why the member chose to join a party that cannot create jobs and leave one that did I will let her explain to constituents across this country.

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the soon-to-be wed member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the leader of the Green Party, who I congratulate on her engagement.

Any of us who have grown up in and around the Golden Horseshoe know of the presence of the Oshawa plant. As we drive down the 401, we see the smokestacks and the workers filing in. People who have been at the Oshawa GO station to catch a train to Ottawa know of the gravity of the situation. I have been part of organizations that have experienced layoffs, and we know of the devastation of layoffs, not just for the people whose careers and jobs disappear but also their partners, and the teachers, doctors and people in the community. It ripples through a place like Oshawa, Hamilton and small towns that have large employers like this. Tonight, our thoughts, as a government and as Canadians, are with the people of Oshawa, the impacted families, the community at large and the region.

We have heard expressed by the members from southern Ontario tonight that the GM plant does not just impact Oshawa. The supply chain reaches every corner of the province and there are many people tonight, business owners and families in communities far away from Oshawa, who are sharing the nervousness and worry as to what will happen next.

When I listen to the debate, what I am not hearing are views about what happens next. I am not hearing optimism about the extraordinary investment in education and training, the hiring of engineers, the $5.6 billion we have invested in the automotive sector, which has secured plants in Alliston, St. Catharines and Windsor, even in Oshawa, with the innovation centre that was put there by GM. I am not hearing a sense that we can get through this; I am hearing that we have to surrender.

I listen to the other side talk about trying to out-trump Trump, that we should mimic the tax cuts that have added $1 trillion to the U.S. debt. The party that pretends to balance budgets is now pretending to care about deficit financing, but to mimic the Trump tax cuts would be to add $1 trillion in equivalent Canadian debt. That is insane. Even though those tax cuts were put in place by the United States, even though the tariffs were put in place by the United States and even though there is no carbon tax in Indiana or Michigan, those states are losing auto plants tonight, just like Oshawa is. Clearly, this is not being driven by any individual policy that governments on either side of the border has put into place.

If we read the article that the members opposite keep referring to by Dennis DesRosiers, he talks about a massive disruption in the auto industry that is driving change through all parts of the sector. Because the GM plant has been operating at about one-third capacity due to its product line not selling as well as others, GM has made a decision that will have a devastating impact on the community. Unfortunately, it is understandable from a whole series of different perspectives, but it is not the tax cuts of Trump that are going to save or define this issue. What is going to save, define and build a strong future in Oshawa is a rethinking of the technology, the application of that technology in the transportation sector and getting out in front of change, as opposed to being dragged through the process, as we have just seen happen in Oshawa.

When we look at electric vehicles in this country and the investments this government has made in technology and innovation in the auto sector in supporting local economic development, there are some great success stories. I was at the CUTA conference in Toronto just the other day and spoke to three different bus companies, one from Edmonton, one from Winnipeg and one from Quebec, about the close to 260 buses they are supplying to the Toronto Transit Commission in the next year and a half. All three of those manufacturing sectors have substantial orders not just in Toronto and in Canada, but also around the world. In fact, the factory in Edmonton has a massive contract selling buses to China.

We have the opportunity here to rethink the auto industry and the transportation sector and to invest in it, with the principles of a clean, green economy driving some of the vision, a vision that recognizes that engineers are a critical part of driving this industry forward and the investments that have been made, including smart investments in the technology institute in Oshawa, smart investments in Waterloo a generation ago, smart investments in the community college sector that trains the workforce.

We can build a better auto industry if we decide we will fight for the future instead of arguing about the past. The past is that sense of just cutting taxes and not making the investments that are required to generate the new industry.

We are not going to save Oshawa with tax cuts. We are going to save it by rebuilding that plant, by supporting investments in that plant, supporting training for that plant and building a future in that plant, which is about where the auto industry is going.

The side opposite says environmental regulations kill the auto industry. The fastest growing auto sector in the United States right now is the electronic private vehicle market. Guess which state is growing that market? It is California, a state with a carbon tax and strong environmental regulations. In fact, that is what is driving those sales. It is getting factories, startups, investments and auto plants with a future, not just on the horizon but arriving day by day in that part of the world.

It was not tax cuts in California that did it. It was smart investment by the private sector, paired with good, strong government policy, combined with a highly-trained workforce and a forward looking set of government policies, which include putting a price on pollution. That has delivered security.

Indiana and Michigan did not do that. They have been cutting taxes. They have been supporting a president who put in the very same steel tariffs that we are talking about here. GM said today in Reuters, when announcing the cuts in the United States, that the American move to put tariffs on steel and aluminum cost GM $1 billion in the United States. That is the dynamic we are dealing with here.

For the people of Oshawa, let us be very clear. This government, all of Canada, all of the Parliament of Canada are here for them tonight, but more important, we will be here with them next week, next month, next year. We see a future in the plant. We see a future in the city, in the region and in the supply chain. We know the investments we are making in the auto sector are going to drive that change.

Therefore, when we talk about the three bus companies I mentioned, the one in Quebec, the one in Manitoba and the in one Alberta, when we ask their leadership what has made the difference, it was the investment in infrastructure by our government. It has allowed Toronto, for example, to have the youngest bus fleet ever and to lead the country in ordering and delivering electronic buses. That has given those companies the platform not just to provide clean transportation for citizens in our country, but a platform to take on the world. As I said, BYD in Edmonton is selling thousands of buses into China.

That is creating good, strong, sustainable jobs, but, again, it is an investment in technology. It is an investment in education and in training. It is changing EI to ensure the training programs support lifelong learning. It is about investments in the auto sector, but most important, it is about investment in Canadians. It is why we have created 500,000 full-time jobs, 700,000 full-time and part-time jobs, if the member opposite wants clarification. It is why we have one of the fastest growing economies in the G7 and why our government is committed to the plan we put in place since being elected.

We are growing the middle class, working hard to ensure those people who are close to joining it get the support they need to get across that line and ensuring every city in the country, from Oshawa to Ottawa and every city in between gets the support it needs to build an economy into the future that not only talks about their needs but the country's needs.

I am proud of what our government has done, but I know we have hard work to do in Oshawa. I hope to goodness the side opposite joins us in this fight and does not simply trade it away for a few tax cuts.

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Milton just proclaimed Unifor president Jerry Dias to be a very close friend. I will read a quote while she was minister of transport, which states:

“I have called the minister every day since last Thursday, and she won’t even pick up the phone,” said Jerry Dias, national president of Unifor. “We’re prepared to work around the clock to find a sustainable solution, but [the] Minister...would rather pick a fight than find a solution.”

The member for Durham just said that it is the tariffs that are causing the problem, but today on Reuters News Agency, explaining the move to close plants in the United States, the head of GM said that the tariffs in the United States have cost GM $1 billion. Those are the American tariffs costing GM $1 billion and it is one of the things that has prompted this set of decisions that GM made.

Could the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge please expand upon why the tariffs are not just an impact in Canada but also a huge impact in the United States and that those tariffs have to be removed, of course, but that they are not the only decision that is driving all of the information we have heard today from GM?

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little astonished. I have been sitting in the House since the election of this government and I have never heard the Conservatives talk about GM until tonight.

I just listened to the member for Carleton talk about the fact that everything is great in the country, that everything is booming and therefore we should be implementing things, like the member for B.C. said, such as the tax cuts that Donald Trump put in place that added a trillion dollars to the U.S. debt. A party that pretends to be concerned about the deficit has no problem recommending we add a trillion dollars to the debt through a bunch of reckless tax cuts.

The Conservatives say that there is no strategy for the auto sector in the country, yet that very same meeting at Davos and the $5.6 billion the government has invested in the auto industry has produced 1,000 high-tech jobs at one of the leading research facilities in the country in Oshawa, operated by GM. Quite clearly, this government is very focused on it. However, if the Conservatives had advice for us three years ago on how to save this plant, what was it and why did they not table it publicly?

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member called for a national strategy. Quite clearly, a $5.6-billion investment into the auto sector by this government since taking office is that strategy brought to life. The tens of thousands of jobs supported by that investment, including the 1,000 high-paying jobs in the Oshawa area for the new GM research facility specifically supported so that it can develop the next generation of vehicles, driverless vehicles, emission-free vehicles, is that strategy. It is that forward-looking strategy to get to the next generation of automobiles.

The member opposite suggested that we should not have signed the free trade deal. However, that free trade deal is supported by Unifor, the very union at the heart of today's disappointing news.

Is she really suggesting that there is no $5.6-billion investment? Is she suggesting there is no support for innovative automotive research and investment in GM? Is she also saying that Unifor should be ignored when it says to support the free trade deal?

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for not only his good words and strong support for the workers, families and communities that are struggling with today's news, but also his contribution when it comes to issues of labour relations and for standing up for important issues that relate to the rights of workers.

The question I have for him is a bit more complex than some of the comments he made. It centres around the centre for excellence, the new research facility that General Motors has opened in Oshawa and the thousand new jobs for engineers in pursuit of the next generation of vehicles. Hopefully, those vehicles will not only be built in Canada, but will be built in Oshawa.

I am curious. We know that one of the things that attracts that next generation of investment is the tax rate. We have heard today from the NDP about the need to increase corporate taxes. In light of today's news, are they rethinking that strategy as it relates to the automotive industry to encourage investment in Oshawa, to encourage the retooling of that facility to hopefully take advantage of the good research that is being done at the new facility recently opened in Oshawa by GM?