Adam Vaughan

[Employment Insurance, October 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians get the support when they need it from the EI system. This is why we have put in a series of changes to make access to the benefits much faster. We have also made changes to make sure that the people who are in a gap in employment or are working seasonally can work and receive benefits in an appropriate way, so that they get the benefits and support they need to participate in the economy.

We will continue to work with stakeholders to fine-tune solutions. One of the challenges we have is a good one, with a buoyed economy, with thousands more new jobs, EI premiums are changing, as are benefits. We are working very hard to make sure that seasonal employees are treated properly.

[Employment Insurance, September 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, our department and the Canada Revenue Agency are working together to offer flexibility and options to ensure people are treated fairly and respectfully. We know, and the House knows, that the Social Security Tribunal is an arm's-length judiciary process that deals with these cases on a case-by-case basis. We are working hard to make sure this situation is addressed properly and fairly, and we will be reporting back to the House when new developments occur.

[Employment Insurance, September 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I know that some former Aveos employees are in a tough situation.

We recognize this is a very significant issue and we are working very hard to address it. However, in this situation, according to EI regulations, the Employment Insurance Commission of Canada has the authority to write off these overpayments, and it does so on a case-by-case basis. We are working hard to address this and have worked with officials in that jurisdiction to make sure we address them as quickly as possible and as fairly as possible.

[Employment Insurance, September 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I know that some former Aveos employees are in a tough situation.

My department and the Canada Revenue Agency are working together to offer flexibility and options to ensure people are treated fairly and respectfully as we move to correct the situation and address individual cases as they appear.

[Social Development, September 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill for the question and her focus on seniors' poverty as well.

Every Canadian deserves a real chance at success and to retire with dignity. This is why since we have taken office our government has taken significant and concrete action to reduce poverty in this country. In fact, the minister hosted a national poverty conference this week to engage stakeholders and people with lived experience to find out how we can do even better on this subject.

Our government will soon be delivering the first-ever Canadian poverty reduction strategy that will tackle the impacts of poverty and, in particular, the impacts that racism and sexism have on this sector. We will be setting clear targets and having clear—

[Canadian Bill of Rights, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the ability to talk about housing is the reason I sought election to federal office. The ability to form a policy that would once and for all put behind us the days when there was no national housing strategy is the reason that I sought elected office.

I could not be prouder of the last budget that was presented in this House by our government because it delivers that. It not only delivers the resources and the time frame to deal with this issue comprehensively, but the government has been working tirelessly over the last several months to make sure it consults with provinces, municipalities, people with lived experience, front-line shelter workers, everybody, to make sure that this is put in place.

The trouble with this notion, the slogan in this campaign around the right to housing, is that it frames it in a legal context. It ends up with the slogan being realized but not with housing necessarily being built. The worst part is that the right to housing does not necessarily guarantee those needing it the right sort of housing.

There are empty houses in this country that we could move people to, based on the argument presented by the opposition. The trouble is that the commute would make it useless. People would end up living in deserted villages on the east coast trying to get to work on the west coast. People could be living in the south when they have school to go to in the north.

The issue is to build a national housing strategy that is comprehensive and that works right across the full spectrum of housing needs. That is the central goal of this government as it pursues 10-year agreements with the provinces and territories, and long-term agreements with aboriginal partners, both on and off reserve, in urban settings and in rural communities.

We need to build a housing policy that works as well for the people living on the street in the south as it does for people living in crowded environments in the north. There is a rural program. There is an urban programs. There are northern programs. There are indigenous programs led by indigenous leaders in the housing sector. This is the goal of the government.

This notion that the problem can be solved by making a legal argument to the courts is going to leave people in the courthouse, not in their own housing. The act of housing is not simply building housing, it is moving people, with care, into the appropriate spot so they are safe and secure in their tenure.

If we read the UN report on housing, it is not simply about embracing a set of rights, it is about creating those policies which deliver those securities and those opportunities to people as a fundamental tenet of being a citizen of the country.

I would argue further, on the legal front, that if we want to look to the charter and to the rule of law around housing, if we stop looking at it as a commodity that must be provided, and instead as a service that people must be partnered with and delivered on, we end up looking at the charter from the perspective of dignity, of the right to health, of the right to security and safety. The best way to achieve those goals is with the national housing strategy, and that is why our government has embraced it as such.

Our government is in the process of finalizing those negotiations with provinces and territories to deliver on the $11.2 billion set out for new housing in the federal budget. The government has additionally announced $10.9 billion in below-market mortgage guarantees and loans, which is a foundation of the co-op program as it existed in the early eighties, a program that was started by the Liberal government. As well, more than $5 billion has been set for indigenous services and housing, where many communities need both the infrastructure and the housing simultaneously to make it safe and secure for people who live there.

The government is not done with that. There are additional measures being taken which were introduced in our very first budget. The effective housing budget in this country was doubled from $2.1 billion to about $4.8 billion. Also, in the last budget there was a guarantee that the operating agreements that were due to expire under the previous government would no longer be allowed to expire. They will be renewed and replaced with new ones that give permanence and security to people living in public housing to this very day.

My question for the party opposite, as it pursues this slogan and pursues this right that is not going to deliver housing to people in real time with real needs in a real way, as it pursues this as the focus of its housing policy, as it talks about the challenges facing people, is why is it constantly getting in the way of programs that are delivering real housing to real people? Last year, the budget was filibustered by the party opposite. Those are real dollars that, if executed, could have delivered shelter to people. Instead, the party opposite chose to politic instead of produce housing.

The other problem I have with the way this bill is being presented is that the party opposite thinks that by talking to a lawyer, one is going to get a house all of a sudden. The reality is that with building out the comprehensive housing program, which deals with everything from the most vulnerable on the streets to those who need supportive housing, social housing, affordable housing, low-income homeowners who need opportunities, to those who need to make sure their investment and mortgage is carefully cared for, all of those programs are currently under way and in negotiation and consultation with all of our partners across the country in delivering it.

Why the party opposite is so focused on talking about rights instead responsibilities is beyond me. Our government has taken responsibility. Our government is taking action. Our government is delivering housing. Our government is putting this country in a position where no longer will we be able to say that the federal government is absent on this file but rather has taken a leadership position on this file.

If people talk to indigenous leaders, talk to municipal leaders, talk to provincial governments, but more importantly, talk to the people who provide housing, who are on the front lines of the housing crisis across this country and have lived experience, they know which government is acting. They know which government is respecting their rights. They know which government has now seen housing as a tool of health care to deliver the full rights of citizenship to every citizen, because this government has not only acted but has continued to act. It will not rest until the national housing strategy is established, the full funding is there, and we are set on a 10-year course to once again be proudly building and supplying housing for all who need it, in appropriate ways, in appropriate settings, with appropriate supports. That is what this government is doing.

I am still surprised that the party opposite is opposing this. I am still shocked that it cannot and will not support these investments and this process. Instead, it sits on the sidelines critiquing it and pushing people toward the courts instead of toward real solutions in real time for real people.

That is what our government has done. We are proud to get that done. We are proud to work with those people, all of them, across the entire sector, to deliver on a national housing strategy. I look forward to their questions.

[Canadian Bill of Rights, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a good day to be in the House to talk about housing, and in particular to talk about what this government has done on historic levels in terms of its investment, not just in the last year's budget but in previous years as well.

As the House knows, we not only doubled the money upon taking office in 2015 and 2016, but in last year's budget we also put on the table a 10-year program, the longest proposal ever put on record in the House of Commons, with the most money ever invested: $11.2 billion over the next 10 years, $10.9 billion dollars in below-market loans and below-interest mortgage rates, and almost $5 billion in aboriginal housing.

The member opposite talked about the right to housing and the legal process that will find people talking to lawyers instead of landlords. If housing is as critical an issue as she suggests, and if a fundamental need for a national housing strategy is so important to this country and for those seeking better housing, safe housing, and affordable housing, my question for the member opposite is simple: Why did the NDP vote against that budget?

[Invictus Games, September 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, during the last week of September, Toronto will host the Invictus Games, and opening ceremonies Saturday night will take place in the riding that I represent.

Founded by His Royal Highness Prince Harry, the Invictus Games are the only international adaptive sporting event for ill, wounded, or injured active duty and veteran service members. The games showcase the unconquerable spirit of those who acquired a physical or mental health injury, or illness while serving their country. The strength, courage, and skills shown by these athletes are an incredible inspiration.

As these brave athletes take the field and compete, let us also turn our minds to homeless veterans, equally brave soldiers across the world, and here at home, who have no home. As our veterans show the world what they can do on home turf, let us raise our game on the home front.

We can beat homelessness. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I commit our teams to that. I also say, “Go, team Canada, go.”

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I followed the comments of my colleague opposite very closely, and in particular those that referenced Saudi Arabia. I remember during the election campaign the leader of third party making a solemn promise at the gates of the very factory where these vehicles were being manufactured, to the union that represented the workers, and to the leadership of the workers specifically, that come hell or high water, the NDP would honour the contract between the factory and Saudi Arabia.

The member for London—Fanshawe made the same promise, the same commitment, in writing to the workers, to the leadership of the union, and to the corporation. They publicly held a press conference and declared that they would not, under any circumstance, with no qualification, withdraw the trade deal between Saudi Arabia and the plant in the member's riding of London—Fanshawe.

I am curious as to how they described that promise, why they made the promise, and how they were going to fulfill it in light of the information the member has just shared with us, which predates that promise being made. Why did the NDP members campaign so fervently, so deliberately, so specifically on honouring this contract and then come into the House after the election and say they were just kidding?

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

The centre of intellectual Toryism, Mr. Speaker.

They never wanted the facts. What they wanted was the anecdotal evidence. What we just had was a long presentation of anecdotal evidence, which has no bearing in reality whatsoever.

I did not hear the member opposite even talk about what was in the bill. He talked about virtually every other thing under the sun, except for the bill with any great sort of specific analysis.

One reason we need the long form census and we need to start gathering statistics and evidence so governments can make decisions is precisely because the previous government's editing and destruction of the census process left major cities in a very difficult situation. The City of Toronto was suing the federal government because there was no process to count people who lived in high-rise buildings. In fact, it left high-rise buildings out of the equation.

In the riding I represent, three-quarters of which is high-rise and condominiums in the downtown core of Toronto, people were not even asked to be counted, let alone enrolled in the census process. As a result of that, federal programs, largely dispensed on a per capita basis, left huge swaths of our country unaccounted for in the calculations and therefore unfunded with respect to the acquisition of infrastructure money and social service dollars that would be delivered to a major city. The short-form census had a devastating impact on equality in the country.

Do you support a long form census, do you support accurate gathering of information, and if you do, why are you not supporting this bill?