Adam Vaughan

[Indian Act, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to pose a question. Instead I will provide a comment, but I will start by saying that it remains one of the great honours, perhaps even above and beyond serving in this house as a member of Parliament, to sit in this House with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. He reminds us not only of the role of our conscience as parliamentarians but also of the work we have to do until that member is satisfied. I commit to him personally that I am not satisfied that the work we are doing will ever be there.

The challenge we have as Canadians, as treaty holders, is the complexity of what we have inherited. It is hard to walk away from it quickly without unintended consequences. We have seen the impact of good intentions on too many communities, and also the impact of bad policy on too many communities. As we move forward, I hope that progress makes its way sometimes. Progress sometimes is a healthy substitute for caution, for being careful. We recognize that we are struggling with this because we have created a mess, a tragic and deadly mess, and we have to deal with it.

The member said he had a list of other challenges that we still have to deal with as a country. In the spirit of reconciliation and our understanding of these new truths, I will ask him to please, one more time, give us a lesson in the work we have to do, and I thank him for it.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the NDP dissect trade deals is a little like listening to hockey fans in Toronto talking to people across the country about how to win a Stanley Cup. The one thing about a lumber deal that we can pretty much count on is that the NDP will support reaching one, and as soon as we get one, the New Democrats will be out protesting against cutting down trees and trying to stop the lumber industry.

A series of issues were raised. I am most interested in the issue of climate change and in the notion of how wrong it is to accept the regional diversity of this country, to understand that northerners and coastal communities consume and use carbon differently from people in central Canada, and that producers of the resource have a different footprint. The NDP wants to impose a one-size-fits-all umbrella agreement across the country, as opposed to setting a national standard and then giving local flexibility in achieving those dollars as a carbon tax and then redistributing them most specifically and most surgically into the communities most impacted by the different consumption patterns.

In light of the fact that we are trying to achieve a national goal but at the same time respect regional authorities and regional dynamics, for the member's home province, what would be the best approach to make sure that low-income Canadians in Manitoba were compensated to make sure that carbon pricing did not impact northern communities and low-income people in urban centres? What would that member see as the best way to redistribute provincial carbon revenues to achieve social equity while we achieve low greenhouse gas emissions by pricing pollution?

[Avie Bennett, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, famed intellectual Marshall McLuhan once penned the phrase, “Culture is Our Business”; business is our culture. The noted University of Toronto professor may have written that, but Avie Bennett personified it.

This past weekend Avie Bennett passed away at 89 years old.

Avie Bennett may be best known for rescuing the publishing house known as McClelland & Stewart back in 1985. It is the publishing house that first gave Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro, and Michael Ondaatje to Canadians and then to the world. When it was on the verge of collapse, Mr. Bennett led the charge to save it.

Mr. Bennett made his fortune as a developer, but he made his mark in our country building some of this nation's great cultural institutions: Canada's National Ballet School, the Art Gallery of Ontario, and the Frank Gehry addition to that. York University was led by this great Canadian and Torontonian. They all benefited from his leadership.

He was a quiet giant. When awarded a Companion of the Order of Canada in 2004, he was described as “one of the great altruists of our time.”

Our artists, Toronto, and this nation will miss Avie, but not as much as his family will. He travelled them far, and they will travel with him within their hearts forever more.

Farewell and I thank him.

[Cannabis Act, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I was drawn back to the debate because I thought we were talking about the federal marine act for a while there. The nautical references and the shipping descriptions left me a little confused. Then I heard at the end the member get back into harbour with an issue which he could actually tether to a dock.

What I can never understand from members of the Conservative Party, and perhaps the member opposite can help me, is that they describe a drug, which they see is so profoundly dangerous, that it can only be left in the hands of criminals to give to children. If it is as dangerous as the member says it is, if it has consequences and we believe it to be true, the bill seeks to prevent it from getting into the hands of children. We do the same with alcohol. Even though it has been legalized, it cannot be sold to children. We do not let young people drive cars even though it is legal. We put firm rules in place. We enforce those rules and we keep roads safe, keep people away from alcohol, and hopefully keep people who should not indulge in cannabis away from it.

If it is so dangerous, the current situation has led to the horrible story the member told. The current situation is the medical evidence. The illegal manufacturing and production of it is what has led to these incredibly strong strains because we have left it in the hands of criminals, Why will the member not support a process that strictly regulates the chemical content, strictly regulates who shall and shall not have it, and remains illegal for young children to smoke? Why would the member suggest that leaving it in the hands of criminals is more safe?

[Cannabis Act, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I just got off the telephone with the head of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, the mayor of Morinville, Mayor Lisa Holmes. I asked her whether the question that came from the opposite way was true, that she opposed this bill. She does not. In fact, she said she wanted it passed faster, so municipalities can start to get the bylaws and enforcement process in place. She also mentioned that she has had several consultations with our government, including the parliamentary secretary on this file.

Members from the other side put up these sort of pretend arguments, reefer madness 2.0 perhaps, about the responsible and fundamentally important way we are regulating and legislating cannabis. As all this happens, they pretend there are mayors and municipal associations that oppose us, when quite frankly, they do not. All they have to do is talk to them and they will get that message. When they hear all of this, is there someone else they would like us to make a telephone call to, to contradict everything they have to say?

[Cannabis Act, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, before we engaged in the private members' business, I listened attentively to my colleague from Edmonton West and heard him talk about the need to consult very closely with municipalities.

I am glad the government does that as a matter of not just habit but good governance. I am glad the Conservative Party is starting to realize that talking to municipalities has a value, especially when they tell us good things and give us good advice. We can build a great country with them. We have been talking with municipalities about the need to support them with maintaining standards around this and the law enforcement around this issue, particularly in those areas where municipalities run their police forces.

We have met with the mayor of Edmonton on this precise issue and on other issues related to this. We have met with the mayor of Calgary as well. Are there any other mayors or reeves or local politicians in Alberta that members think we could talk to, many of whom support the bill with a great deal of clarity, to get their advice around revenue streams and other components of this? We want to make sure we reflect all of the municipalities and incorporate their perspectives into this process as we move forward with the best legislation around this issue this country has ever seen.

[National Maternity Assistance Program Strategy Act, June 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-243, as put forward by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, and to commend him for the work on this legislation and for raising awareness of this extraordinarily important issue about equity and equity for women in the workplace.

It is a sign of the times and the generational change starting to happen in the House as we see men step up in ways that are extraordinarily progressive. They find imaginative ways to address not women's issues, but societal issues that have a gender component to them and the gender analysis that is required to start to create a more equal society and also bring women into places where they perhaps would not have had the opportunity to work as a result of some of the challenges, especially younger women in their child-bearing years.

The bill focuses on the health and safety of pregnant workers in the workplace. In particular, the bill would mandate the Government of Canada to invite provinces and territories and relevant stakeholders to consult on the prospect of a national maternity assistance program.

I have a couple of quick notes in response to the previous speaker.

As the bill moved through the process of introduction, committee, through the budget process, and now onto the floor for third reading, a doctor's note is no longer a mandatory requirement as part of this provision, as the issues that were raised and the concerns that were highlighted have been dealt with through the collaboration of cabinet talking to the private member's bill. The committee heard some excellent evidence to make the bill better as well.

Additionally, some of the flexibility that took away the pressure on the need for royal consent has given the bill more flexibility and, in doing so, has also accommodated the situation where an unexpected pregnancy, which also produces a child more quickly than expected, can now be accommodated in a way that protects the woman's right to ensure income continues to come into the household so the family is sustained and supported properly.

On top of that, we have also taken a number of other steps around EI reform and revision to make EI more flexible but, more important, more easily accessible with respect to the time from application to receiving benefits. This too was an important component that was added to the process as we were seized by this issue, in large part because of the presentation by the member for Kingston and the Islands.

We are looking to support pregnant women in the workplace. We are also ensuring we minimize and deal with the risks to their health and to the health of their unborn children. We are also ensuring that when the employer is unable to accommodate them through reassignment, there are mechanisms in place to support the family, the mother, and the child.

I would like to again state that the government supports Bill C-243, as amended by the standing committee. I will also take a few minutes to talk about some of the other measures contained in budget 2017 that also deal with this issue and work to protect the health and safety of pregnant workers and nursing employees, with which is also an important issue our caucus is seized.

Starting in 2017-18, $886.4 million will be spent over five years, and $204.8 million per year to make employment insurance caregiving, parental, and maternity benefits more flexible to meet all of their diverse needs of families. There is more to this issue than simply the situation facing pregnant workers.

With budget 2017, we are helping working parents face the challenges that come with a growing family and we are offering more flexible arrangements to pregnant workers. We are proposing to make employment insurance parental benefits more flexible.

Budget 2017 introduced choice and flexibility for parents. Parents will be able to choose the option that best suits their needs based on their work, their family situation, and their child care circumstances.

Under the proposed changes, parents will have two options: receiving El parental benefits over a period of up to 12 months at the existing benefit rate of 55% of their average weekly earnings, or over an extended period of up to 18 months at a benefit rate of 33% of their average weekly earnings. In either case, eligible parents will receive roughly the same level of support.

Investing in El parental benefits to make them more flexible is expected to amount to $152 million over five years starting in 2017-18, at the rate of about $27.5 million per year. Parents will continue to be able to share these benefits, and that is an important component as well.

Through budget 2017, we also proposed additional supports for caregivers. We proposed to create a new employment insurance benefit that would last up to 15 weeks. This new benefit will allow Canadians to care for an adult family member who is critically ill or injured, a benefit we pay to people caring for an adult family member who is critically ill but is not at the end of his or her life. This is a first for employment insurance.

Any of us who have dealt with family situations involving complex illnesses know that the severity of those illnesses do not necessarily give one a prescriptive timetable in which to take time away from work. This flexibility and acknowledgement of some of the challenges facing Canadian families is part how we are making EI more accessible, flexible, and fair. This new benefit supplements the existing compassionate care benefit, which continues to provide up to 26 weeks of benefits for those who leave work to care for family members in end-of-life situations.

Parents of critically ill children will continue to have access of up to 35 weeks. They will now be able to share these benefits with more family members as part of the flexibilities. To implement these measures, budget 2017 proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

Additionally, our government is also proposing to amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that workers in federally regulated sectors have the job protection they need while they are receiving caregiving, parental or maternity benefits. Of particular interest in the present debate is the proposal in budget 2017 that will also allow pregnant women to claim El maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date, up from the current eight weeks, if they so choose. This is how we have worked with the member to ensure his goals are realized. This investment in additional flexibility is expected to be about $43.1 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, and about $9.2 million a year thereafter.

The collaboration between the member for Kingston and the Islands, our government, and members from both sides of the House was valuable to advancing this private member's bill's policy agenda. For those of us who have watched private members' bills move through the House, sometimes with friction, sometimes with quite easy support, the work that the member did on this bill to ensure it not only got represented in the budget when it ran into some difficulties around the financing issue but by also working at committee with his colleagues to ensure he had an impact with his private member's bill, speaks well to not only the focus, but the integrity and the hard work of the member in question, and we thank him. In fact, families across the country owe this member a debt of gratitude.

We are making these changes to the employment insurance system because we care about the well-being of Canadian workers. We made those improvements because Canadians asked us to make these changes.

Last year, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the member for Kingston and the Islands launched online consultations with Canadians on employment insurance around maternity, parental, and caregiving benefits. They asked how people felt about the idea of developing more flexible maternity and parental employment insurance benefits. However, we also requested their views on the idea of offering more inclusive benefits and leave provisions under the Canada Labour Code for Canadians caring for family members. This was all part of the process to develop this bill and ensure we got as much input as possible. Consultation does matter. It is not just a buzzword; it actually is something we do to improve legislation with Canadians for Canadians.

When asked about their challenges while being on maternity or parental leave, people mentioned that finances were their main concern, especially those who were in single-income families, and those with twins and multiple births. Difficulties finding suitable and affordable child care and problems qualifying for El benefits, while being self-employed or working on contract, were also brought up. More than half of the participants said that they would prefer taking longer combined maternity and parental leaves for up to 18 months at a lower El benefit if we could make that happen. In terms of caregiving benefits and leave, participants mostly talked about the financial, personal health, and emotional burdens of having to deal with these things without proper government supports.

Our government also hosted a stakeholder round table last November. Participants included representatives from the medical community, health charities, family advocacy groups, unions, and business associations. With respect to maternity benefits and leave, one of the things we heard was that early maternity leave was a health and safety issue and a human right. We also heard from stakeholders that changes to caregiving benefits and leave were needed to make those less restrictive as well.

We made sure to consult on potential changes to employment insurance with our partners, including the public, and numerous stakeholders. The implementation of Bill C-243 will have us engage provinces, territories, and the relevant stakeholders regarding the prospect of a national maternity assistance program.

Canada's employment insurance special benefits can be of support to eligible Canadians through important life events. Each year, these benefits help thousands of eligible Canadians to prepare and care for a new baby. We are happy to help. We are happy to partner with the member to support the bill. We want these benefits to remain appropriate for Canadian workers to help them balance their responsibilities.

Our government is on its way to make a fundamental change to the landscape for working women and men in our country all for the better, and in particular for our country' s children.

[Paris Agreement, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it seems as if the Conservatives are now taking credit for a global recession in 2008, and if they could only have made it deeper and collapsed the mortgage market further, their plan would have worked. Does the minister really think Stephen Harper was in charge of the global recession all those years ago, and was it really the Conservatives' plan to fight greenhouse gas emissions?

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I sat here listening to the opposition benches begging for the member for Winnipeg North to stop talking. I am a little surprised now that they want him to continue.

I was most curious about the notion that this is an omnibus bill. This is not an omnibus bill. The previous Conservative budget, which was 640 pages, and the one before that, which was closer to 750, had measures that were not even discussed in the budget documents and had amendments that were as far afield as selling embassies and cancelling the long form census. There were issues just stuffed in there, as if the ministers were instructed to find notes on their desks and stuff them into an omnibus bill and try to pass the legislation, regardless of whether there was a monetary impact.

Regarding the promise we made not to abuse omnibus legislation, all of us understand that budget bills contain all the measures in the budget and therefore are complex and often touch 30 measures.

The member likes to quote Churchill, but I will quote Stephen Harper. He said they would not present a budget that was not balanced. That is what he said. Every one of their budgets would be balanced, yet they failed to do that. They did not wait for the recession. They did it on day one. When the recession came, they really did it, and they never stopped.

Why did the Conservatives not ever balance a budget? What advice would they give us that we would possibly listen to?

[June 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there were so many inaccuracies in that presentation, I do not know which question to ask or which part of NDP history the New Democrat members wish to ignore in formulating their perspective.

The fact is that the infrastructure bank was mentioned on page 48 in the campaign platform. It was there to be read, and it is still there online, if the member wants to look it up. I will not ask questions about why the members do not read the platform before they criticize it.

I will ask about the NDP's lack of understanding of how the housing budget is put together. As a party, the NDP does not seem to understand that the money for this year was in the 2016 budget. We doubled the money for housing from a base of about $2.2 billion to $4.8 billion. Those dollars are flowing into projects right now. It is why I was in Thunder Bay, opening up projects. It is why I will be in Kitchener, Waterloo, and city after city that are finally building housing again.

Did the member not read the budget last year? Does he fail to understand that the base has gone from $2.2 billion to $4.8 billion and that when we add the $11.2 billion over the next 11 years and the $10.9 billion in loans, the actual expenditure in housing for this year is twice what it was when we took over and will be twice that again afterwards? We are putting a national housing strategy in place, the likes of which the country has never seen. Why will the NDP not support that?