Adam Vaughan

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about empathy, but it is fake empathy coming from the other side. It is as fake as the allegation of fake news. While we are talking about fake news, the NDP yesterday raised an issue about Toronto Star employees being laid off. That is a workplace in my riding, and I watched as the Conservatives laughed and clapped and made fun of the fact that 52 families in my riding lost jobs yesterday. They found that funny.

Let me remind the people opposite that when it comes to fake empathy, when they laugh, they are the first party to stand up for resource workers, and we stand with them in that regard. However, print journalists use paper, paper comes from pulp mills, and pulp mills rely on forestry workers. When they laugh at 52 families in my riding losing jobs, they are laughing at journalists, and they are laughing at resource workers.

When it comes to fake empathy, it is no different on the veterans file. The shear hypocrisy, the shear arrogance of the party opposite—

[Poverty, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have no hesitation in welcoming a push by the party opposite. Having 56,000 people in poverty is 56,000 people too many. The reality is that it is very hard to retroactively fix programs. One has to proactively project them into the future and start fixing problems systemically. Otherwise, they reoccur.

One of the challenges we have with the two methods we are using to alleviate poverty, the Canada child benefit and the GIS, is that they are tied to the income tax system. They need to be because of the way in which they are calculated. However, we also have put in place other programs, such as the CPP enhancement and the new Canada housing benefit, which attempt to get at different populations outside of the Income Tax Act as a way of supporting our anti-poverty initiatives. That is the way to do it.

Is there room for improvement? The Prime Minister will say every single time he is asked that better is always possible, but this government takes poverty reduction seriously. Our campaign to create new and innovative ways to support people, regardless of what stage they are at in life and regardless of what part of the country they live in—

[Poverty, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the GIS, let me be very clear. We made it automatic enrolment a month ago. That has been done and we did it for a very good reason. We care about seniors and we know that for seniors, particularly in rural communities and those who have linguistic challenges and perhaps come from different cultures, their access to government services is inhibited. We knew that in order to help seniors, we needed to make that enrolment automatic and so we have done that. We did it without being asked by the NDP.

On the other issues that were raised, I have no problem being pushed to do more for low-income Canadians and for Canadians who fall below the poverty line. I support the NDP and I have worked with colleagues across the House to make sure that poverty is sustained as a critical focus of this government. Therefore, let me tell members what we have done without being asked and what we intend to do before we are asked.

Fundamentally, the most important thing we have done in this term of government is the Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit supports children in this country by supporting their families and 65% of the families who receive the maximum CCB are households led by single parents. Part of the reason we brought in gender-based budgeting and gender-based analysis to our economic policies was to make sure that when we made expenditures not only did we help the intended targets of support, but we broadened that support to make sure that women were also helped simultaneously. We do more than one thing with these sorts of investments. We do not just lift children out of poverty. We lift women in this country out of poverty and with them the families that they often lead as single parents.

That single government policy has lifted 40% of children living in poverty in this country out of poverty. Again, we did not wait to be asked how to do this, we did it.

Another initiative that is critical to what has gone on in terms of our approach to dealing with poverty was the reform of the CPP and the enhancement to the GIS. What we are slowly starting to see is a series of programs that not only target low-income Canadians, but also make sure we understand the impact poverty has on racialized communities, the role that anti-black racism has on poverty in this country, the role that gender has on poverty in this country. Our programs not only deal with poverty as a general issue, but we target specific groups in specific ways to make sure those hardest hit by poverty are lifted out of poverty the quickest.

We have more work to be done and as I said, I have no problem being pushed to be more proactive, more progressive, and more successful in alleviating poverty. I have no problem, but to be told we are not doing things and to not acknowledge what great steps have been made is just wilfully partisan.

I will give another example. The national housing strategy has been criticized because it is too long. The only way to get into a systemic transformation of the housing policy in this country is not to do one- and two-year programs as promised by the party opposite during their campaign platform, a short four-year program. The only way to do it and the way every municipality, every housing activist, every homeless person, every single person in the sector says is the right way to do it is to do a multi-year program. As we build the multi-year program, by sheer force of nature as we add new housing, the program must go. We have heard criticism that the program is back-end loaded. Of course it is back-end loaded.

If I build 100 new houses in a riding this year and 100 more the year after that, and 100 more the year after that, after three years I do not have 300 units of housing. I have 100, then 200, then 300. I have 600 units of housing. We build housing systems in a back-end loaded multi-year way. That is exactly what we have done.

However, we have done something else as part of this process. We have also proposed for the first time ever, as part of the first national housing strategy, a Canada housing benefit. If the party opposite wants to know what the next big move to eliminate poverty in this country is, it is the Canada housing benefit, which will subsidize people and give them choices as to where they live and help subsidize them on core housing needs and put them in a position where they can choose to locate near a school, jobs, and family—

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to downplay the crisis that exists in Vancouver and Toronto. It is serious. That is why this government is acting. However, the member opposite said that we were not spending the money fast enough and that was one of the things we could finance with the bill he has presented to us. I agree. That is why we put $1 billion into fighting tax evasion to bring those dollars back.

He also said that people in Vancouver did not welcome the national housing strategy, so I want to quote a few things that were said.

The B.C. minister of housing said that it was a good first step, and was glad to see the government had renewed it. The mayor of Vancouver said that it had been an embarrassment not to have a national housing strategy, and welcomed this investment. The B.C. Premier, also a New Democrat, said that it was a fantastic proposal, was glad the money would start to fund next year, and was worried that they were not sure yet what the per capita funding would be and how it would relate to Vancouver. Janice Abbott, a strong voice for housing equity, and the co-op sector in Vancouver all praised the national housing strategy because of the dollars being delivered now, the commitment over 10 years, the fact that we modelled the program on the advice they gave us, which was that it had to be long-term, that the program had to grow over 10 years, and therefore had to be back-end loaded so we could build a strong foundation and a growing program that would get bigger year after year.

People in Vancouver love this housing strategy. What they need is you to support us to make it happen faster.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite said that one of the things the NDP would use reclaimed tax dollars for was for the federal government to once again spend money on housing. I appreciate that. I was on the front lines protesting back in the early nineties when a Liberal Party cut transfers to the provinces and transferred authority to spend on housing to the provinces. Some provinces, like B.C. and Quebec, picked up the responsibility and invested in housing. Other provinces, Ontario in particular, did not.

However, I was also there when the federal government re-entered the housing market in 1997 with additional billions of dollars. More importantly, I ran for Parliament and was part of the government that two years ago doubled the amount of money going into homelessness and added $4.8 billion for housing and now has put $40 billion into housing. Those dollars are starting to flow this very year. I appreciate that the NDP members do not think that it is happening, and I cannot convince them that it is, but I can point to projects in Vancouver, where we were cutting ribbons, quite literally, last week, where federal dollars are being spent..

I have also heard it referenced that the NDP does not like the fact that it is a 10-year program. They think it comes after the next election. There are two years left in the mandate. It is a 10-year program. Eight years come after the next election. I cannot change that. Is the NDP really serious that they do not want multi-year funding for housing, that they want only short-term funding for housing, and that multi-year funding investments do not work?

Second to that, are the NDP also insistent that—

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to correct the record. There is no obligation under the legislation or the program that requires people to get signed letters from spouses in order to receive the Canada child benefit if they are divorced. That is unequivocally, absolutely clear in the regulations. It is an option, where it is possible, but there are several other ways, including getting letters from lawyers, police, and clergy to support the claim.

I want Canadians listening at home to understand that the benefit does not require women to be in harm's way to receive a benefit to which they are entitled, and appropriately so. I think that needs to be clear. If people are being told that by Service Canada, it is wrong. Their MPs and our ministry will ensure they get the benefits they are entitled to in the safest way possible.

I am not going to correct all the rhetoric on this because I only have so much time. The NDP members have said that tax treaties are really bad, because tax treaties are used effectively to support tax shelters. While they clearly frame how foreign taxes and Canadian taxes are paid where there is a split jurisdiction, and there is reason to debate and be concerned about that and that is why the government has put $1 billion into trying to find those dollars being illegally hidden, the issue is this. Tax treaties are also the legal framework by which we access other governments' legal systems, other governments' tax records, and other government's situations to ascertain exactly what the appropriate level of Canadian taxes should be paid.

It is fair that there could be a debate about what kind of tax should be paid, but do you not agree that tax treaties are fundamental to the justice framework and the tax law structure in order to access taxes that may be or may not be being paid appropriately? Do you support tax treaties? Does your party support tax treaties?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I want to make it very clear that the priorities listed by my colleague across the way are shared on this side of the House. It is why the $40 billion investment in housing has been produced. It is why we did not declare the opioid crisis a national crisis. Declaring it does not change the money put into it, but we invested into it, changed laws, made safe injection sites approval easier and faster. We delisted many of the drugs that are required to revive people when they overdose.

I share the analysis that going after tax evasion brings resources back to the country and allows us to spend it on things like the Canada child benefit and fix the water situation on reserves and traditional territories. These are all really good ideas and it is why this government is so heavily invested in producing results in them.

However, to get at those tax revenues that are hidden offshore, we need tax treaties. We need a legal framework in order to access the court system in other countries, so we need accords. When the NDP members say they do not want tax treaties, how would they access foreign courts without those treaties?

[Business of Supply, February 6th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite has studied this issue and sat on the committee that took carriage of it, but one of the things that I found hardest to fully comprehend in the report was what constitutes the definition of a “friend”. The member opposite and I have known each other for a few years. I have to admit I have never been to his cottage or flown, if he has a helicopter, in his helicopter, but he donated to one of my early political campaigns. I have certainly met his spouse. He knew my father. We knew each other through professional ties. I think I have spent more time with him now in the House than I did over all those years when we shared that profession.

However, if I walked into a bar and he was watching the Leafs and cheering for the right team, the only blue team I cheer for, I might buy him a beer. Does that purchase of beer based on the definition of friendship constitute a gift, or because there is a lack of letter writing back and forth, because I do not know the exact relationship he had to my father, is that a friendship or should I no longer refer to him as a friend?

[Business of Supply, February 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is more of a comment than a question. I heard the member opposite reference her time at the Toronto port authority and having an ethical conduct and review of law experience at that institution. I remind the member opposite that when she was there, no annual general meetings were held as required by the legislation, and a flight manifest for the MFP inquiry disappeared. We did not know how one of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the City of Toronto went down because it did not keep the records. I would also remind her that while she was a candidate for Parliament, she used government offices to fax out her fundraising requests.

I would also remind the member opposite that one member of the cabinet's fundraising chief and another member's effective campaign manager were appointed to the board. While both of these folks were kicking back salaries that they earned from the port authority to the Conservative Party, an issue I raised in the previous Parliament, the member opposite sat completely silent. If she is going to school us on ethics, she might want to review her behaviour at the Toronto port authority and understand that was unethical as well.

[Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, February 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I heard the phrase “an abdication of executive responsibility” used frequently in the previous speech. The abdication of executive responsibility was the complete absence of collective bargaining agreements with dozens of federal unions and thousands of federal employees. The lack of a structured workplace and comprehensive pay structure, work structure, and a health and safety set of conditions is the very definition of an abdication of responsibility, an abdication of duty.

Can the member opposite explain why the previous government refused to negotiate, and failed to reach deals, failed the structure of the workplace, and projected workers into the abyss by refusing to sign one single collective agreement when it left office?