Adam Vaughan

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to yet another Conservative speech. The Conservatives talk about their environmental achievement of reducing greenhouse gas emissions during their term in office. However, there were two things that did that. One was Ontario getting out of coal and reducing the coal particulate in the air, which was hugely beneficial and has had massive savings for the health care budget in Ontario.

However, the real thing that caused the greenhouse gas emissions to go lower during the Harper years was the global recession. In fact, Stephen Harper liked recessions so much that he tried to start a second one just as he was leaving office, which, coincidentally, he would have made deeper if the opposition had not gotten together and forced him into a massive investment in infrastructure to try to stimulate the economy, something the Conservatives continually oppose.

I know the member opposite was a proud member of the Harper government. If recessions are his strategy, he must also admit that the document is a Harper document. It was written, researched, and commissioned before this government took office. It was released through the civil service the day after the election, before this government was sworn in. Therefore, it is the Conservatives' document. Did they not read it? Do they not remember what is in it? Why do they not ask one of their cabinet colleagues what is in it? Why have they forgotten even their own work? On the other hand, I might want to forget their work.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I know the member represents a riding north of the city in which I represent a riding, and I know that all-day GO Transit train service to Barrie has been one of the big achievements in the last few years of the Wynne government in Ontario. In fact, that government has rebuilt the GO Transit system to the point where we do not have daily cancellations and breakdowns on the train system. The largest investment in rail in the world is taking place right now in the GTA. It has delivered all-day service to the community that the member represents, which unlocks all sorts of economic opportunities in his community and also gives people an alternative to driving.

The investment in GO Transit is partially financed out of this shifting of perspective, where we tax pollution and then reinvest into options where we give people methods of transportation around the GTA that cut greenhouse gas emissions. We are also moving toward electrification. I know the member supports that project, so I am just curious about how he would pay for it if he were not going to pay for it with taxes.

The document the member wants uncovered was produced by the Conservatives. Why did he not just read it and release it when he was in government?

[Attack in Toronto, April 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, part of what binds us as members of Parliament is our approach to home. We share being away from home and we share the pride we have in our hometowns.

What we share in the House is in some sense not being at home. It is a strange kind of loneliness. When tragedy strikes close to our home, as it did in my hometown of Toronto this week, it brings a sense of helplessness when one is far away.

What brought me home this week, as I watched from a distance, were the faces and names of those who were hurt and those who helped, the names and accents of those who did not walk away when strangers needed care, and the backgrounds of those who were on duty who responded with such clarity.

The chorus of diverse voices brought me home and made our home, my home, Toronto, safe again.

But not every soul is safe yet. Some have been lost, many have been wounded, and some are still afraid. They are not alone. All of us will help them heal.

Yonge Street is Toronto and Toronto is Yonge and strong.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's wise words clearly have linked the experience, the trauma, the tragedy, and the horror of the residential school system to the ongoing systemic problems that continue to plague the country as it moves toward truth and reconciliation, and quite clearly has not arrived there yet.

I draw attention to call to action 1, which is focused on child welfare and the reduction of children in the child welfare system. The member from Manitoba drew parallels from the residential school system to the situation in Manitoba now. Manitoba has had one of the most aggressive and tragic child welfare systems. Good people trying to do good work, but we have effectively outsourced the residential school system. We have privatized it in the sense that we have apprehended close to 11,000 children in her province over the last 10 or 15 years. It is a provincial government, with good intention but with clearly bad practice, that also has taken children from their families, from their culture, from their communities.

As we move toward truth and reconciliation, it is not just the Catholic Church that needs to revisit apologies. The provincial government made one, but over the last 10 years has replicated the system of taking children from their families. We know that of the 11,000 kids in Manitoba, close to 86% are of indigenous heritage.

Does the member opposite have words for the previous provincial government and its cabinet with respect to what they should do to revisit their apology to ensure we do not replicate the system in a new form and not simply focus on the bad deeds of the Catholic Church here today?

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the member's experience as a member of the Métis nation from the homeland that he represents here in Parliament.

One of the most troubling points of reconciliation is that we tend to look backwards to see our mistakes, as opposed to realizing them in real life and in real time. Not just the Catholic Church, but social institutions still remove children from families and from communities, still separate children from their culture, and do it in a way that may be bathed in good intention, as I am sure previous generations thought they were doing the right thing. There is a lack of recognition of that and of the impact of those tragedies that unfold day by day, a lack of change on that file. Tina Fontaine's name is perhaps at the top of the list right now.

I wonder if the member, being a member of Parliament from Manitoba in particular, could reflect on the fact that as we ask for an apology from the Catholic Church, we also need to demand better of our own social institutions right across this country, whether it be municipal, provincial, or federal, as the colonialism continues in many people's lives.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question of the minister, I just want to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for the beautiful angry words that are impossible not to respond to. It is a good day in Parliament when our hearts and our minds are open to new possibilities.

From a personal perspective, and I have seen it in practice, the minister has led many of us to put away the titles of MP, of minister, of lawyer, of bureaucrat, and has asked us as members of this caucus and Parliament to sit and bear witness to history as part of the process of truth and reconciliation. I am wondering what her thoughts are on not just meeting herself with those who may be on Parliament Hill today with this lived experience but for the church itself to put aside its robes, its institutions, its doctrine, and its lawyers and sit down face to face to understand the legacy of what went wrong and the systemic nature of what went wrong. What advice would she give to those members of the church to bear witness to these truths as part of their process of reconciliation? How would she advise going about that?

[Supporting New Parents Act, April 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, under this proposed scheme, the tax credit would be available only to individuals who are receiving maternity or parental leave benefits from an employment insurance program. All other parents, such as same sex partners or parents who are adopting a child, would not benefit with 1¢ of tax relief under the proposed bill that is in front of us.

However, these are not the only people who would be left out as a result of this kind of Tory conjuring. Under the hon. member's proposal, we would also be denying benefits to almost all self-employed people, those who do not pay any federal personal income tax because their income is too low, and those who do not qualify for EI parental benefits because of the hours they work, perhaps in seasonal employment. They would not qualify for the non-refundable tax credit. In short, the proposed tax credit would do very little for those families who need it most, and in particular for the poorest children in this country. It would also not help families who are already working hard to make ends meet.

Let us contrast that with our approach, which is the Canada child benefit. Compared to the old system of child benefits, the CCB now gives low- and middle-income parents more money each month. It is also tax-free. We just heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the government should not give money and then take it back, yet that is exactly what that proposal will seek to do. Our approach would provide more money each month, tax-free, to help with the high costs of raising kids. The CCB is simpler, more generous, and better targeted to give more help to people who need it most.

About 3.3 million families with children are now receiving $23 billion in annual CCB payments. About 65% of the families receiving the maximum CCB amounts are single parents, and about 90% of those are single mothers. A single mom with two children aged five and eight, and a net income of $35,000 in 2016, will have received $11,125 in tax-free Canada child benefits in the 2017-18 benefit year. This amounts to $3,535 more than she would have received under the old system.

This talk about an $800 tax that floats around does not take into consideration one very important thing, which is that the most important benefit a family receives for having children is not part of the Fraser Institute report. The Fraser Institute report likes to do math; it just does not like to do the complete equation, which is a problem.

Therefore, we end up with a situation where low-income families that want to get their kids into sports get the money up front to invest into their kids' opportunities, as opposed to having all the taxes come off it, as it was under the previous regime. Only if the parents had enough money after all of that could they participate, and only after all of that would they get their tax return with the benefit coming back to them, and only if they were in a particular income class would they qualify to put their kids into sports. It was sports for the rich, and nothing for the poor. That is not progressive taxation policy, and it is not good athletic policy. It is Tory policy.

Through budget 2018, we have done even more to help people with the CCB by increasing the benefits each year to keep pace with the rising cost of living. This starts in July, two years earlier than scheduled, because the economy is doing so well. The books are good, and we are moving forward with the growth agenda. The CCB was one of the big contributors to the economic growth and the vitality of the economy last year, which shows that good, strong social investments that help people move forward help the economy move forward simultaneously. That is why our approach is the better approach. It would also continue to ensure that hard-working moms and dads have more money each month to buy the things their families need, with the most help going to those families who need it the most.

Our government is taking action to help ensure that everyone who qualifies for support receives it. To close this gap, the government will expand outreach efforts, in particular to on-reserve, remote, and northern indigenous communities, many of which do not pay income tax and are therefore left out of the scheme proposed by the party opposite. We will also be piloting outreach projects for urban indigenous communities so that indigenous people are better able to access not just this program but the full suite of services offered, including the CCB.

There is also the EI parental sharing benefit. In budget 2017, we gave families greater choice and flexibility, allowing parents to receive up to 61 weeks of El parental benefits over an extended period of 18 months instead of the usual 12 months, which is critical. As families try to fit together the different choices they have to make in their life, we have created more flexibility. Making El parental benefits more flexible helps working parents navigate the challenges that come with a growing family. It gives them the option of staying at home with their baby longer, if that is the right choice for their family.

In budget 2018, we went a step further, introducing the El parental sharing benefit. This benefit would provide additional weeks of a “use it or lose it” El parental benefits program when both parents agree to share parental leave. With this new benefit, parents in two-parent families who agree to share parental leave could receive an additional five weeks of leave, or an additional eight weeks for parents who choose the extended program. Providing these additional weeks of benefits under the new EI parental sharing benefit would encourage both parents in two-parent families to share equally in the work of raising their children.

It will also provide greater flexibility, particularly for mothers to return to work sooner if they so choose, knowing their family has the support to do just this.

In addition, the government proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving federal EI benefits.

Our government is also committed to doing more for Canadian families when it comes to early learning and child care. We listen to the Leader of the Opposition talk about regulated child care as some sort of bureaucratic monster that needs to be slain at every opportunity when we have heard from constituent after constituent about the need for highly regulated, proper day care and having a system that is funded nationally. To have that party say they will walk away from regulated child care is just appalling.

If that is their approach to supporting women in the workforce, supporting families with new kids, and supporting child care needs and early learning opportunities for children in this country, I can only say they should get out more and talk to people who do not vote Conservative, because the rest of the country is demanding action on this file.

This government has taken action on this file with its $7.5-billion investment. The member referenced Kathleen Wynne. Her investment coupled with our investments provided 100,000 new regulated day care spaces in Ontario alone. Half of these are in the GTA, in the riding I represent and close to the riding I represent. That is real help for real people, and it is being delivered not with boutique tax cuts that only help wealthy families, but with good, strong investments that help all families. That is one of the most critical things we are doing to support families, children, and social development in this country.

The other component to our support for families, and in particular families with children, is about to be launched within the year, as the provincial governments have now signed a multilateral agreement. That is the Canada housing benefit. It is yet another investment to support families who have vulnerabilities largely driven through economic circumstance, many of whom are single mother-led families with children in housing that is not affordable.

We are providing these services and rebuilding the social safety net that was not only neglected but in fact cut over the previous 10 years. We are investing in making sure those with the greatest needs get the greatest help, instead of targeting our tax cuts at a voting bloc that is affluent and that we think we can hold onto and win in the next election. We are doing good social work and making good investments in social progress. We are making good investments in day care, housing, and child benefit. We are reforming the EI program and rebuilding the social safety net. As we do all this, we are starting to look at our reforms as a trampoline, something that will not hold people when they fall but bounce them back up and get them—

[Supporting New Parents Act, April 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since yesterday's tragic event in Toronto. It has touched all of our families and all of our communities in different ways. I want to assure the people of the city I represent and have the privilege to speak on behalf of in this House that all of Parliament and all of the government is here to help with support. We will make sure that the beauty of Toronto, its diversity and its capacity to help its citizens, is not surrendered to this horrible act we witnessed on its city streets just yesterday. My love and heart go out to those families that have been impacted.

I am pleased to rise in this chamber to speak to Bill C-394. While anytime we talk about the plight of this country's children and families is a good day in the House, I also think it is very important to talk about why costly tax changes really should be implemented as part of a comprehensive budget process and not as a gimmick, stunt, or slogan, as we have just seen presented in this House.

The tax proposal being presented here would not do half of what it promises it would do. It certainly would have very little impact on the most vulnerable families in this country, and it would not provide a firm or comprehensive tradeoff that would allow our government to support it.

Doing a full budget allows the government to consider all the tradeoffs and balance all the priorities and undertake new fiscal commitments in a responsible manner that helps those who have the greatest needs with the most amount of support. It does not, as this proposal would do, target support to people who are doing slightly better than others. I will get into how that works in my comments.

It is critical to understand that as the government works to propose and deliver real change for Canadians, it does so in a way that reflects and respects their real needs. The government does not believe that Canadian families are well served by a maze of boutique tax credits, such as the proposed tax credit we are debating today, which would benefit some while doing nothing for those who need it most.

Let us consider who would actually be helped by what the hon. member is proposing. Under his proposed scheme, the tax credit would only be available to individuals who are receiving maternity or parental leave benefits from an employment insurance program. All the other parents—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 23rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is always good to hear from my colleague from Saskatchewan. I think we share priorities in terms of child care, affordable housing, and pharmacare. On the issue of child care, it is not this budget that she should look to, but the budget of 2016, which invested $7.5 billion over the next 10 years. Those accords have been signed with the provinces. That money is being spent. In my province, 100,000 new regulated day care spaces are being funded as a direct result of that budget.

On the issue of pharmacare, I agree that it is not being implemented immediately. There is a strategic plan being produced by a panel of experts that will show us exactly how to do that. I invite her to be standing in this House next year when we do just that, in terms of acting on those recommendations.

On the issue of affordable housing, I am gobsmacked. I remind the member opposite that her party only promised $40 million for homelessness over four years, which was $10 million extra a year. In our very first budget, we spent $100 million more than the previous year. We doubled it from $100 million to $200 million, which means we are going to be spending $400 million on homelessness over the four years of our term of office, not the paltry, meek, timid $40 million promised by her government.

Where it really gets me is when she says there is no new money for housing in this budget. There is close to $2 billion that is new for rental housing in this budget. If we look at her platform in the previous election, the final three years of their mandate there was zero, zero, zero. That is the NDP platform they think we should follow as bold advice.

Is she serious that no money is being spent, or is she just pretending that no money is being spent to make a political argument?

[Employment Insurance, April 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, we agree that the system set up by the previous government has failed Canadians, and we do not contest the complaints as presented to us today.

Our government has reviewed the recommendations that were part of the report of the Social Security Tribunal and we are committed to improving the appeals process to ensure we deliver high quality, client-centric services to all Canadians.

Our past efforts, combined with further transformative actions, will result in a tribunal that will be more efficient, more fair, and transparent, and where partners will have a role in shaping its renewal through continued engagement as changes are explored and implemented.

By working together we can achieve real and lasting success with a system that will be more efficient, fair, and transparent for Canadians.

We remain determined to do better and to establish a recourse process that meets the needs and expectations of Canadians.