Adam Vaughan

[Points of Order, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, to be explicitly clear, I am not in any way contesting that she felt intimidated. I take the allegation very seriously.

I do not agree with the description of the events, and I have the right to disagree as to what happened. However, that is not the issue. It is not a question of how I interpreted the events. Anything I did, everything I did, that left her feeling that way deserves an apology, and I explicitly and without reservation offer that apology. It is her feelings that matter, not my interpretation and not my perception of the events.

If she felt intimidated, if anyone in this place feels intimidated by exchanges inside or outside the House, that is wrong. I take full responsibility for that, unequivocally. The issue as to what exactly happened is not the point of order that was raised; rather, it is the sentiment that she raised around feeling intimidated.

No member of this House should ever feel intimidated. We all have to take responsibility for heckling, for side remarks, for casual remarks made on the bus. It is not appropriate for anyone to ever feel that. That is why I am apologizing, and I will make every attempt to deliver it directly to the individual in question.

[Points of Order, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the proper procedure and appropriate response is to apologize as soon as possible. As I said, I have no hesitation in apologizing to her directly and no hesitation in taking responsibility for the way in which my actions have left a member feeling.

As I said, no member should ever feel unsafe or intimidated. I apologize for whatever contribution I made to her feeling that way. She should not feel that way. I take this matter as seriously as she does and as seriously as the House would expect me to.

[Points of Order, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in my absence, I understand that a point of order was raised earlier this afternoon while I was at committee doing work on behalf of the minister I serve. I understand that the member for Richmond Centre has concerns about an interaction we had on one of the buses that shuttles back and forth between our offices, following our duty here in the House.

I do not share the characterization of the events as they were reported to have taken place, and will stand that by. However, it is not a question of what I feel, it is not a question of my perspective, but a question of the perspective and the point of order raised by the member for Richmond Centre.

No member of this House should ever feel intimidated. No member of this House should ever feel that an exchange with a member of the opposition or even a colleague leaves them feeling intimated. I regret that the member felt intimidated. I have no other course of action to take than to apologize directly.

Regardless of my intent, regardless of my behaviour, if the member felt that she was intimidated, that is wrong. I take full responsibility for her feeling that. Her feelings do matter. I do respect them. I do respect this House. I will conduct my business more appropriately in the future.

Again, I apologize to any member who felt intimidated by any interaction I played a part in. Again, it is not my feelings that are stake here, it is not my sentiment, it is hers. I respect them as they have been presented to the House and I do apologize. I will apologize to her directly as well.

[Housing, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is no issue on which I stand with a prouder sense of commitment and accomplishment than on the issue of housing. Not only in the first budget did we double the amount of money going to provinces and our partners in the municipalities, but we have now committed to a 10-year program to create the first ever national strategy for housing.

This is going to be a game-changer. We have consulted widely with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have listened to their needs about repairs, about construction, and about subsidies. We will be delivering the best housing policy our country has ever seen. I can only hope the party opposite does not vote against it once again.

[Child Care, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would know that one of the challenges we face as a federal government is that when we put new dollars into a program, quite often provinces, and the NDP in Alberta is a fine example, take money out the back door, so we do not end up increasing expenditures on child care. Therefore, we need to sign comprehensive agreements with the provinces before the dollars can roll. We have done that now, which is why this program is going to add, as I said, an additional $7 billion into the day care system over the next few years.

The member opposite cites studies that say the national spending levels should be a certain amount, and then assumes that the federal government should be 100% responsible for it. As we know, under the Constitution, under the service delivery model we have in this country, the $7 billion that we put in, or the 9% that the member references, is only part of the national expenditure. She has identified the federal government's expenditure, but the provinces and cities also contribute to that, which gets us much closer to the amount. The member should calculate that as she does the addition.

However, if the member opposite, and particularly the NDP, were serious about child care, my question to them would be this. Why, when we had a national child care agreement fully funded with all of the provinces, moving towards a universal system of accessible, regulated child care and early learning, would they have defeated the government at the cusp of that coming into existence? If they really cared about children, why would they not have delayed that vote by a matter of two weeks, which is all it would have taken, and we would have had 10 years of solid investment and a solid program across the country?

They put their electoral fortunes ahead of the plight of children, so I will not be lectured to by the New Democrats.

[Child Care, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for raising this important issue in the House, and focusing on child care. It is a critical issue for many Canadians across the country.

We know that child care is important. In fact, we understand that many families in this country lack affordable, high-quality, regulated child care and we know that this forces many families into making hard choices. Some parents are forced to stay at home because they simply cannot afford to pay for child care. Others are working more than one job to make ends meet.

Too many families have to make difficult choices because of the lack of quality, affordable child care. Some parents have to give up their careers because they cannot afford to pay for child care, while others have to work more than one job to make ends meet.

No one should have to make these tough choices, and our government is committed to making sure that Canadians have to make them less and less.

Our government recognizes that quality child care and early learning support during early years is critical to a child's social, emotional, and cognitive development, and participation in society later on. This is why in our first budget a year ago, in 2016, our government proposed to invest $500 million immediately to early learning and child care, including $100 million specifically targeted to indigenous early learning and child care, which will be led, designed, and delivered by indigenous communities.

However, that was just a start. This year, in budget 2017, we proposed and invested an additional $7 billion over 10 years to support and create more high-quality, flexible, inclusive, and affordable child care right across the country, and we are making it happen. In fact, on June 12, the federal government, along with provincial and territorial partners, and the ministers responsible for early learning and child care across the country, announced a multilateral early learning child care framework, and that has been put into place. This new framework sets the foundation for governments to work towards the long-shared goal of making sure that children, no matter where they are across Canada, can experience an enriching environment of quality learning and early child care.

We have done more than that, though. Since then, three provinces and one territory have entered into three bilateral agreements. In the coming weeks and months, we will continue to work with the remaining provincial and territorial partners, with a total of $1.2 billion to be allocated, addressing each jurisdiction's unique early learning and child care needs based on the systems that are present in different regions and provinces across this country. We will develop an action plan, together with the provinces and territories, to track progress and ensure that low and middle-income families increasingly have more access to affordable child care. The framework will complement the development of a separate indigenous early learning and child care framework between our government and indigenous partners, which will reflect the unique cultural needs of Métis nation, Inuit, and first nation children right across the country.

We are also investing another $95 million to close the data gap to make sure we have accurate assessments. That is not just in terms of what we are doing across the country to make sure we set new standards and achieve those new standards, but we will be tracking that progress through the life of the agreements we have signed.

We are also investing $100 million into early learning and child care innovation, so that we can find new ways to support children as they move through the early years, to make sure it is not just child minding but child care and learning development that take place. We are working closely with provinces and territories right across this country to make sure that Canadians and children in this country get the support they need, and we will continue to work with the parties opposite to make sure we get those programs delivered.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as announced in budget 2017, the combined 12 months of maternity and parental leave refers to the combination of 15 weeks of EI maternity benefits and the 35 weeks of EI parental benefits and corresponding leaves of 17 maternity weeks and 37 parental weeks, up to a total maximum of 52 weeks, under the Canada Labour Code for federally regulated sectors.

Once budget 2017 measures are implemented, the 18 months of parental leave will include the 15 weeks of EI maternity benefits and 61 weeks of extended parental benefits, and corresponding leaves of 17 maternity weeks and 63 parental weeks, up to a total maximum of 78 weeks of combined leave under the Canada Labour Code for federally regulated sectors.

The EI parental benefits and leaves are available to birth and adoptive parents, and can be shared by both parents at the same time or consecutively. Parents may choose between either the current standard parental benefits of up to 35 weeks with 37 weeks of leave under the Canada Labour Code, or the new extended parental benefit of up to 61 weeks with 63 weeks of leave under the Canada Labour Code.

A key distinction between EI maternity and parental benefits is that parental benefits can be shared by both parents and are available to biological and adoptive parents, while the maternity benefit is only available to the biological mother, including a birth mother who places her child for adoption. Adoptive parents are not eligible for EI maternity benefits.

The cost of the budget 2017 announcement regarding EI parental benefits is $152 million over five years, starting in 2017–18, and $27.5 million per year thereafter for birth and adoptive parents combined. Please consult the federal budget at www.budget.gc.ca/2017/home-accueil-en.html.

The budget 2017 estimated cost to extend parental leave to 18 months includes benefits for both birth and adoptive parents.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, October 18th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the question I have is the following.

Given that we are all so involved as a country in supporting the sustainable development goals at the international level, I am wondering what advice the member might have on practical things we can do to support other countries as they, too, decide to engage in sustainable development goals, as we leave that era of thinking that all progress is good progress, that said that if we build an expressway in downtown Toronto, it is good because it means jobs, even though it destroys the city, wipes out the local economy, pollutes the air, and displaces low-income populations—a policy, by the way, that the CCF supported, curiously enough.

I am just curious if the member has advice for us on what we can do to support other countries as they embrace sustainable development goals.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, October 18th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member opposite for a very thoughtful and wise intervention, including some of her suggestions and ideas on how government can approach sustainable development with an actual work plan.

The member for Vancouver Quadra is currently engaged in a greening of government exercise. It would be great, if you have not put those specific proposals on recycled paper, to have you do that.

I have a question about—

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, October 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, having heard the previous comment and response, I guess the plan would be $180 billion-plus in infrastructure investment, including support for the largest conversion from diesel rail to electric rail in the world going on right now in Ontario, and support for a massive investment in public transit. As well, we have the ocean protection plan. We have made significant investments to ensure the environmental standards for resource development are sustainable, but are also positive for the environment. We have had comprehensive and profound engagement with indigenous communities right across the country as we roll that out. We have signed on to the Paris accord and the movement toward greenhouse gas reduction.

As we do all of this, as we steward the economy and allow it to grow and create record growth, with the lowering of unemployment right across the country, as we grow the economy and have an impact on the new technology, the new systems, and the new infrastructure required to meet the new century's challenges, is that not exactly why the party opposite is supporting this bill?