Adam Vaughan

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is on a matter of privilege. I would like the hon. member opposite, who has just questioned my ethical standards and behaviour solely because of the political party I belong to, to withdraw that comment. It is a comment unbefitting of any—

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to participate in this debate, as all debates afford us an opportunity to make our positions and perspectives known, not only to members opposite but also to the constituents and residents we represent back in our home ridings.

I will provide context for those who might be listening in different parts of the country right now about what happened today. The Conservative Party, as an opposition party, is afforded the opportunity through the parliamentary process to set the agenda for a day's debate so that it is not just government members who bring forward the agenda in this place. We all have the opportunity to raise issues that are fundamental to the quality of life and the good standing of our citizens, and to make sure that the priorities of the country are not set solely by the government but are set by all parliamentarians.

There are an allotted number of days, which are very important days in the parliamentary calendar. The opposition quite often studies several issues, puts two or three of those issues, and focuses attention and builds momentum toward those debates. Those priorities not only define their perspective on what constitutes an important issue for this country, but, in presenting them to the Canadian public through Parliament, the members believe these are actually the most fundamental issues that their party wishes to discuss on any given day.

We have seen these motions have great effect on government and on the history of this country. I remember that, in the previous term, the NDP brought forth a motion to eliminate sales tax on feminine hygiene products, and it changed government policy. It was a profoundly mature and wise use of parliamentary motions, and the government of the day, having had this motion presented to it several times, one day decided to finally listen and act on it. Lo and behold, a motion from the opposition became government policy, and we changed the quality of life and affordability for many Canadians as a collective group. In fact, we voted unanimously on that motion.

On another issue, I commend the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who, since becoming an opposition member, has been a very strong advocate for refugees from the Middle East, and in particular the plight of Yazidi women. That member brought forward a motion that brought attention to the issue and said that there should be special measures taken to address a very particular part of the population of 25,000 refugees that we brought into the country, which was a number opposed by the opposition parties but supported by the government. As a government, we responded in a way that we hope satisfied the opposition. Apparently, it did. However, when we actually moved forward to provide support for the refugees once they arrived, the party opposite voted against it, which is a very strange approach to settling refugees. Nonetheless, I will let the party opposite explain its hypocrisy on that issue.

The fundamental fact is that when the opposition has this opportunity to focus debate in the House, and focus it for Canadians, it is not just a question of how we assess the proposition brought forward by the opposition members. Canadians can also assess the party opposite as to what it prioritized as the most pressing issue of the day and of the moment. Members of the party opposite are more interested in playing parliamentary games and rehashing previous issues, which have already been reported on in Parliament, than actually advancing any issue of a particular riding or a particular group of people in this country, or a particular domestic or international issue.

The priority set by the party opposite is in fact so pointless that the opposition House leader, within minutes of introducing it, stood up and asked us not to talk about it. What a strange course of events for this day. The party opposite stands up and says that this is the most important issue facing Canada, and then says that we do not really need to talk about it, and to please go on to what was originally scheduled. What is the point? I am lost in figuring out what exactly the point is. What I do know is that if we had moved closure on the debate, those members would have gone berserk, saying they have a right to be heard.

As Liberals stand up here and address the issue that has been raised, we are being told to please sit down and stop talking about it. We would rather talk about what the government sees as a set of priorities, which is the budget. Quite frankly, that is the priority for this country.

What the budget has done is transformational in so many sectors of this country. It is a wonder that opposition members do not seize on one of those and try to make it a better idea, but they are not interested. They are not interested in figuring out how the Canada child benefit, which lifts close to 300,000 families out of poverty, might be extended to reach even more. In fact, the NDP opposition raised a very good point in committee, which is that the benefit was not indexed. When we brought in a proposal to index it in a few years, they said that it was not good enough. This government listens, because if one listens, one leads better. We listened to the opposition, and we improved the Canada child benefit in this budget.

Is the Conservative Party interested in extending the reach of anti-poverty measures? No. Is it interested in making sure kids get the help they need to succeed in this country? No.

What those members see as a priority is effectively something they do not even talk about, and that is why the opposition House leader just tried to quash the debate. They care so little about their issue that they cannot even hold together as a caucus and support the debate. They are not even participating in the debate, except to interrupt and ask us to talk about something they do not want us to talk about, or stop talking about something they do not want us to talk about, or stay on point by sitting down and just letting the whole debate collapse. That is what they are doing. Is this not confusing?

Those of us who have sat in Parliament a little longer than one term know that it is simply a frustration and delay point to slow down the progress of the government. That is fine. That is the job of the opposition. Some do it on principle, and some do it with a great deal of democratic flair and debating prowess.

All they have done is introduce a motion and ask us not to talk about it. That is the extent of their imagination. That is the extent of their national vision. That is the extent of their capacity to care for vulnerable Canadians. The Conservatives would rather talk about a report that has already been tabled in Parliament and that has already been acted on and accorded with. They would rather rehash an issue that took place a year ago than talk about what is happening today or tomorrow in this country. Shame on them.

As I said, when opposition parties are afforded this parliamentary privilege to talk about the issues of the day that matter, to talk about precisely the most critical issue in their perspective, they will be judged not just by this Parliament but by Canadians. If Canadians are that focused on this issue, quite frankly, I have not come across it when I go door to door, hold town hall meetings, do radio and television panels, or communicate in any number of ways with my constituents or Canadians across the country. What I hear about is the challenges facing those Canadians yet to receive the help that this Parliament needs to deliver to them.

For example, we have a report in the city of Toronto showing that after 10 years of failed housing policy in this country—

[Rural Crime, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, one of the privileges of sitting in the House is listening to the experiences from different parts of the country that are quite clearly different from the experiences we may have in our own home ridings. To hear documented the very real concerns, the very real needs of communities in rural Canada enlightens us all. I want to thank the member for raising the issue and bringing it to the attention of all parliamentarians. We have a shared responsibility in this country to make the streets of my riding as safe as the back roads of my colleague's riding. I assure her that she does not stand alone in the desire to change this circumstance.

As a former member of the police service board in Toronto, and as someone who has been involved in the municipal sector for quite some time, my question to the member is this. As the cities, towns, and rural municipalities speak about this issue, what resources are they prepared to partner with us? Has she canvassed the rural municipalities and the associations, like the ones in Alberta and Saskatchewan, to see what kinds of partnerships are possible around data collection, the studying of this issue, and making sure that our response is as robust as it could be?

[Families, Children and Social Development, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the national housing strategy does place the right to housing within a human rights framework. We are now starting the final consultations before introducing legislation in the next few months that will produce that critically important body of work. I am proud of the work we have done on that.

In fact, let us take a look at what we have done on homelessness. We have doubled the money from our first budget, and now we are spending an extra $100 million annually on homelessness, as we move to reduce it as much as we can. In contrast, the NDP platform had an increase of only $10 million a year, which was just not good enough. That is one of the reasons the New Democrats' housing policy did not get them elected to government. It was not a strong enough housing policy. In fact, I would call it “timid”, if I could quote their leader as he describes other people's housing policies. Theirs was worse than timid. It was meek.

On the issue of basic income, I think it is a fantastic idea. We are looking at different ways in which our programs layer up and create the platform to lift people out with assistance and supports. Poverty reduction—

[Families, Children and Social Development, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question and for giving me an opportunity to talk about what our government is doing to eliminate poverty in Canada. This is a very important issue for our government, not to mention for the children of this country.

This issue is not something we needed to be told to act on. We have acted. We have acted across so many fronts. I will, in my short time, try to get all of those actions into a single speech.

First and foremost, the Canada child benefit has lifted close to 900,000 kids out of poverty. We did that in our first year in office, and we have indexed that, so it sustains the progress we have made on that front. That lifts countless children straight out of poverty, and does it in a way that is progressive. It has been celebrated by food banks, by anti-poverty organizations, by Oxfam, and by Campaign 2000 right across the country. It is one of the most progressive new policies in my lifetime in this country.

After that, we immediately started to double the investments to provinces on affordable housing in our first budget and sustained those as we move toward the national housing strategy that was launched last year. The focal point of that is the Canada housing benefit, which comes into place next year. However, in the interim we started building new housing so that when the subsidies arrive, they will arrive at the same time the new housing arrives. On that alone, through the national housing strategy, 500,000 Canadians will be lifted out of core housing needs, once again, alleviating poverty.

When it comes to seniors, the guaranteed income supplement was boosted. Contrary to the presentation we just heard, Canadians are automatically enrolled, and have been since the start of January. It was one of the changes we made prior to introducing the budget. That automatic enrolment has also been applied to the Canada workers benefit, which is a boost in earnings that will no longer be taxed for low-income wage earners who re-enter the workforce. In order to support their re-entry, the Canada workers benefit, which replaces the workers income tax benefit, WITB, is now also automatically applied to anyone who files their income taxes, if they are eligible. That is going to affect close to 20,000 people and impact close to 300,000 people in the country, and lift even more people out of poverty.

On top of all of that, we have also lowered the retirement age back down to 65. That eliminates the potential for hundreds of thousands of Canadians to fall off the cliff upon retirement and end up in poverty.

Additional dollars have come the way the member opposite has asked for, and it is there. Add to that $7.5 billion invested in child care in the first provincial, territorial, and federal government agreement on child care the country has ever seen. We did not wait to spend that in the next five or six years, as the NDP promised under its platform. We did not wait for the provinces to come up with their half of the money before we started spending ours, the $7.5 billion that is being signed in provinces and territories day by day. We only have two provinces left to have the complete package put together. In my province alone, that has delivered 100,000 new, affordable, regulated, and high-quality day care spaces, many of which are in the city I represent.

When we add it all up, whether it is the 900,000 or the 300,000 or the 20,000, or the 70,000 or the 500,000 we have lifted well over a million people out of poverty in our first two years in office, and that is not good enough. Our focus now is getting to the next million and the million after that. Our government will not rest as long as poverty defines too many people's lives in our country, most importantly indigenous kids and racialized people who often bear the most horrific brunt of poverty. We have to do better. We have to make sure every Canadian gets advantaged by the programs we have proudly put in place as the new government.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, let me once again try to put before the House how this helps people in urban settings who are dealing with extraordinary gun violence. I want to start by saying that I have been to more burials for people in one of the neighbourhoods I represent than I have been to funerals for my own family. Gun violence is so serious in urban settings, and the margin of error is just not there. When a gun goes off in a crowded urban area, people get killed. We had an innocent bystander killed this week in Toronto. The gun that killed her was owned by a “responsible“ gun owner, a licensed gun owner. All 11 guns this individual owned, including long guns, were in an arsenal in the riding I represent. The ability to transport handguns around the city without stronger regulation and restriction allowed this individual to “lose” his guns. Those guns have been lost in the streets of Toronto, and they make my city, my community, and the residents I represent very vulnerable.

This legislation, which would restrict the transportation of handguns in cities, because they are restricted weapons, is good for Toronto. Thank goodness so many gun owners are responsible and do what they have to do about locking up their guns, separating the ammunition, and disassembling the trigger mechanism. Thank goodness that happens. However, the lost handguns from so-called responsible gun owners are killing children in Toronto. This legislation addresses it and builds on the investments made in the budget to deal with this very dangerous issue in Toronto.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked me to rise on a point of order, and the point of order I would like to raise is that quite clearly he has not read the legislation. I can point him to where it helps.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member opposite to take a look at page 208, under part 4 of the budget that was just dropped. The Conservatives voted against the section under part 4 entitled “Taking Action Against Guns and Gangs”, which is a $100 million a year investment to deal with the issue the member raised. He suggested that we were not doing anything about it. They voted against taking action and supporting communities that were experiencing violence, one of which is mine, a downtown riding in the middle of Toronto.

We just had an innocent bystander shot in our city by an individual who had access to 11 legal guns. He was a legal gun owner. When police officers found that individual and recovered the gun involved in the shooting, they could not recover the other 10 guns. That responsible gun owner had somehow irresponsibly lost those 10 guns, including shotguns. Because we could go back and find out where they were purchased, we then had access to all the other people the guns had been shared with and all the other crimes they had committed.

There needs to be a structure around how urban crime happens, and it does not just happen with guns smuggled across the border. It does not just happen with long guns. It happens with hand guns and pistols. We need a way to restrict those weapons and control their movement in cities to make them safe.

I appreciate that rural crime needs a different approach and that we need to respect long gun owners in rural Canada. Those guns are as much tools as they are a hobby or sporting utility. However, the reality is that this proposed gun legislation will make our cities safer and it will make responsible gun owners completely different from irresponsible gun owners. Therefore, when there are clear rules to follow, all of us are safer, all of us do better, and that is why the legislation is so needed.

[The Budget, March 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the party opposite of this. On affordable rental housing construction incentives, in the third year of its mandate there were zero dollars. That is what those members promised for the crisis they described as the largest crisis confronting the riding of the member opposite.

With respect to homelessness initiatives, those members offered to add an extra $10 billion. We have added $100 billion, yet they call our approach timid. Their approach was one-tenth of what we have offered.

On the restoration of funding and reinvesting in affordable housing, which is essentially guaranteeing the operating agreements, those members put forward $640 million, which we are achieving, but we have also added in this budget an extra $1.25 billion over the next three years for housing.

In light of the fact that our expenditure on housing is by a factor of 10 in some situations, three in others, but quadruple the size of what they promised, would the members not agree they should support the housing budget put forth by our government of $40 billion over the next 10 years?

[The Budget, March 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite keeps holding this book up, and he really ought to read it.

Something else the member might want to think about reading is the NDP platform from the last election. I am going to read what the NDP promised in year three of its mandate, if elected, for introduction of incentives for affordable rental housing construction. It was zero dollars. In fact, the New Democrats did it for three straight years, zero, zero, zero, for what they just described as the greatest crisis confronting this country.

On homelessness, we have invested an extra $100 million on top of the $100-million base that our government created back in the late 1990s and the Tories never changed. We added $100 million to that. What did the NDP promise to add, in the third year of its mandate? What was the most pressing response it could come up with? It was $10 million. That is not even half of what the City of Toronto spends, and that is what the NDP put on the table.

When it comes to aboriginal housing, it was zero dollars. In fact, all the NDP put down was $25 million for critical indigenous infrastructure in the third year of its mandate.

All I can say is that if Canadians had selected an NDP government, it would have made about as big a difference as selecting a Conservative government. In other words, the NDP promises were next to nothing, which was exactly what the Tories promised. That is why both parties are on the opposite side of the House. Zero, zero, zero.