Adam Vaughan

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will just address some of the points that were raised.

Putting aside the sheer foolishness of having the opposition decide which Liberal should or should not talk at any given point, let me just assure the members opposite that one Liberal could take on 99. It does not matter which one of us it is. One can deal with it.

It is sheer audacity to call the budget bill an omnibus bill. Our bill is 400 pages long. There was never a budget bill passed by the Conservatives that was less than 600 pages. It is sheer audacity to refer to an omnibus bill. I await a budget presented one clause at a time. I do not think it will ever happen in my lifetime.

Then putting aside the sheer nonsense about the Prime Minister, when asked the same question, giving the same answer—

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, our government's commitment on two fronts is unparalleled in this parliamentary history. One is on the child benefit and the other is on support for victims of violence fleeing and seeking better shelter and protection.

On the issue that has been raised, it is a significant issue and I assure the member we will get a specific answer to the specific issues around tax and point of return. That is an issue which has just been raised today and I am happy to sit with the member and get the proper results.

On the child benefit, we are raising kids out of poverty. On victims of violence, we are supporting them. We need to make sure those two programs work in concert.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate with great interest. I applaud the advocacy work and the lived experiences that we have heard expressed here today. This is a serious issue, and many approaches need to be pursued in order to provide not just better treatment but also better therapies as well as support for families.

One of the concerns that many parents express to us is the lack of supportive housing for their children as they age and the parents are not there in later years to care for them. For the last 15 years there has been no program of supportive housing that permitted medical supports and medical financing from departments of health, whether provincial or federal, to combine with CMHC grants and public housing grants to create the supportive housing required to allow these individuals to live independently.

In light of the fact that the budget for the first time puts those resources in place to create exactly the kind of supportive housing that is required, is the member opposite prepared to support that part of the budget to make sure we create supportive housing to allow children with autism to age gracefully with the support they need to be as productive as possible?

[Softwood Lumber, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government stands ready to take action on this file and support the workers in the communities that are suffering as we move through this very difficult time on softwood lumber.

Softwood lumber remains a priority for the government. A negotiated deal is a priority, but we need a good deal, not just any deal.

We stand ready to respond to the communities, the municipalities, the provinces, and the community organizations that are suffering during this time. We remain committed to making sure that Canadians receive the benefits they can as we move through these tough times.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks and noted that the focus tended to be on how to simultaneously govern the RCMP as public servants and also as police officers. It is a challenge that municipalities, provinces, and other authorities right across this country have insofar as police having duties which are completely different from the civil service in terms of the management structure, as well as the execution of those duties, and the powers those duties contain.

Would the member opposite not agree that we cannot treat them as civil servants, pure and simple, precisely because of the extraordinary powers that they have? Therefore, we need to custom fit a separate collective agreement around the police component of the RCMP workforce in order to make sure the law enforcement components of it are treated separately. Subsequent to that, if he acknowledges that, is it not for the RCMP itself and management to set out the terms and effectiveness of those relationships and not necessarily something Parliament should impose from afar?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member opposite. He has been a strong and clear voice and a fierce advocate for a better health policy to deal with this crisis and I think he has earned the respect of all of us. However, the comment I just heard was that this government is putting in less money than the previous government did, and has been less helpful on this crisis than the previous government was, even though we are the people who are bringing forth the legislation to change the way in which safe injection sites are situated in communities. In fact, my riding is going to receive a safe injection site precisely because of our progressive action.

The health accord has specific dollars for the very first time for treatment and mental health services in situations, in other words in support of housing sites. The national housing strategy, which is well over $35 billion over the next 10 years, explicitly is focused on delivering supportive housing treatment sites with addiction and mental health services at the intersectionality of those two issues. Those dollars are on the table and there is the health accord as well. We built in, as we heard the health minister in question period today, this program so it is not an emergency, but it is a systemic approach to a crisis which has materialized on city streets right across the country. In light of all of those measures, how can the member opposite say there are fewer resources being invested into this crisis than there were under the previous government?

[Child Care, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to address this issue, as does our budget 2017, but before we do that, we should thank mothers, and caregivers who serve as mothers, right across this country for the extraordinary work they do raising all of us and all of our kids.

Budget 2017 invests $7 billion over the next 10 years, in partnership with provinces, territories, and aboriginal groups, to achieve just what this question asks about, to move toward a national program that takes care of our kids in a more humane, safe, and regulated way.

This government is committed to delivering on that campaign promise. Budget 2017 is the first step. We look forward to making more announcements.

[Immigration, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, as we celebrate 150 years of Confederation, we are also celebrating the 50th anniversary of some of the events that marked our country's centenary in 1967.

The highlight of that year for many people was Expo 67. Although I was only six at the time, it remains a very personal and a very proud memory for me. The reason is that my father and his partners were the chief architects of Canada's Pavilion at the world's fair.

Katimavik, the iconic inverted floating pyramid, was more than just a majestic architectural symbol for the country; it also housed some other meanings.

Almost as remarkable as the design is the fact that my father and his six partners were all immigrants to Canada, all in their mid-thirties, and all foreign trained, yet got this commission.

The promise our country offered, the opportunities these people were given to contribute to this nation are what many of us we will celebrate when we celebrate Canada and its 150 years

Whether it is Expo, the centenary or Canada 150, when we celebrate Canada, we ought to keep in mind that what we celebrate are the people and the opportunities we give to each other, even the immigrants.

[Privilege, April 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I love listening to the NDP talk about the concept of consensus. The New Democrats' concept of consensus is that first we agree to consensus and then others must do what they think is right, and if others do not agree to that, it is not consensus. I will tell members that where that philosophy falls down and becomes the most absurd is in this debate.

There is not one single member of Parliament who disagrees with the ruling and the observation that the privileges of the members who were stuck on the bus and could not vote were abridged. There is complete consensus, unanimous consensus, everyone agrees, and what happens? There is an endless debate afterward, not a resolution of the issue when consensus is reached. Consensus becomes the platform for endless debate, and that is a problem.

I appreciate that the process by which we attempted to bring a close to a unanimous position had a subsequent ruling, and that is what the debate on the floor of the House is today, but the notion that consensus is somehow going to magically unlock things in Parliament is absurd. We saw that during the electoral reform debate as well. The New Democrats said there had to be consensus, and then they did not budge from one idea that they held previous to the election on what that consensus must, not could, look like.

My question is on the notion of consensus and the goodwill to fellow parliamentarians. When is the NDP going to support the Bloc Québécois' call for official party status, the very same call the NDP made when their party did not quite meet the standard and was accommodated. Through the spirit of consensus and goodwill to all members, when is the NDP going to afford the Bloc Québécois official party status and let those members sit at committees and get equal rights, as all parliamentarians should; or is their talk just that: talk?

[Privilege, April 13th, 2017]

How's provincial auto insurance going, David?