Adam Vaughan

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this issue.

The compensation of our men and women in the military is of course one that we take as a cherished responsibility and an honour to live up to. We have created systems and processes to properly compensate those men and women who find themselves on combat missions, who find themselves in harm's way on peace missions, wherever they are deployed to make sure that their families are taken care of, that the reward for their sacrifice to this country is properly acknowledged.

There are systems in place to measure and to distribute this income to these families and to deliver the salaries and from time to time they need to be modernized and revised, especially in a world where conditions can change on what looks like a rescue mission that suddenly can become a civil war that suddenly becomes something even more catastrophic than that.

We have to redesign and rethink sometimes the policies that provide compensation to members of our armed forces. This is clearly the situation we find ourselves in now. This policy has existed since 2003. It is largely administered and assessed by an ongoing process inside the Canadian Armed Forces. When we discovered what had happened, we took steps to rectify the situation and made a commitment to the House and we will follow through on that commitment because we have the responsibility to do that not just as a government, but as parliamentarians.

We have challenges and those challenges need to escape the prism of partisan politics sometimes, although we have our fun across the floor, and we need to understand that this commitment to families is a sacred one, just as our commitment to veterans is a sacred one. We can all up our game on this and provide much more certainty, much more clarity, and much more fairness in the way in which these benefits are assessed and assigned and delivered. That is the commitment that this government has made. We can see it across all of government when it comes to veterans, whether it is dealing with homelessness, whether it is dealing with Veterans Affairs and survivor benefits, whether it is the motion that was passed unanimously in the House around PTSD. We made a commitment and this government will honour that commitment because this government takes that commitment seriously.

While there has been back and forth today, I think I can speak for all members of the House when I say that we can do better, we will do better, and we will do it together as a Parliament in this year.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one could be confused by the comments across the way. One would think we had cancelled the F-35 mission in Iraq, based on the glory the opposition members try to paint themselves in when it comes to military procurement support for our veterans. I would remind them that it was the F-18 mission that was suggested so that we could pursue peace in a different way. That is instructive.

If we have made a mistake on this side, the mistake we made was believing that a party that wrapped itself in the military so tightly and so consistently would have solved this problem before we took office. If anything, our assumption that the Conservatives actually treated the military fairly was the problem.

The policy in question has been in place since 2003. The adjustment was not made by the Government of Canada. It is a procedural and bureaucratic problem in the way the military assigns these credits. The issue is this: are there any other mistakes the Harper government, and the survivors opposite, left behind that we should be paying attention to that we can fix? Quite clearly, when it comes to veterans, procurement, and compensation for our veterans, there are huge mistakes that have been made, and we would love to fix them, because quite clearly, the Conservatives did not. What other problems did they leave for us to fix that they are going to blame us for?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, when one reviews this policy, one sees that it has been in place since 2003. One sees that the previous government made no effort to change it, or re-evaluate it, or modernize it to respond to the volatile and sometimes rapidly changing conditions we find on the ground in different places where Canadian Forces are deployed.

My question for the member opposite is a very simple one. In light of the fact that this is a policy that has simply been executed, not a decision made by the government, and in light of the fact that the government has already committed itself to reviewing this policy in conjunction with the armed forces to ensure our personnel are properly paid and the risk is properly assessed, has the member opposite taken the opportunity to ask a former minister of defence who is in her caucus why the Conservatives did not change it over the last 10 years if it is such a critical issue?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to much of what was said. I have a great deal of respect for the member opposite in terms of the analysis and history the member has on this issue. Something confused me, and I seek clarification, because a member of her party made the same comment.

My understanding is that this policy existed, and in fact, if we look at the resolution of this issue, it seeks to make it retroactive to 2014. That is obviously a date prior to the Liberal government taking office, which means that this policy is not an expression of Liberal Party policy or this government's policy but rather is a policy we inherited. However, I heard NDP members make reference to the fact that our government changed the policy to take pay away from members of the service. In fact, what we have failed to do, if we have failed to do anything, is change a policy we inherited. It is a policy we have promised to change and to change retroactively back to 2014.

In light of that, would the correct assessment not be that the previous government put this policy in place? The previous government denied pay to Armed Forces members, who are serving this country so well, and it is the previous government's policy that we are now seeking to correct.

[Poverty, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, this government shares the values and the principles expressed by the member opposite. However, when the choice comes between action and words, this government will always choose action. The investment in the child benefit, the investment in seniors, the investment in the housing sector, and the promise to negotiate and create the national housing strategy, a framework for early childhood education, as well as make sure we deliver on a whole series of issues as they relate to aboriginal, Métis, and first nations peoples, including the historic investments in those communities, combine with historic investments in making sure that we sustain a pressure against those forces that create poverty in this country. That is action.

While that constitutes a budget response to the issues raised by the member opposite, we are also in the position of putting together a national strategy right across the country, relying on evidence, lived experience, and expertise. It is studying specific communities, and is going to deliver a strategy that will put an end to poverty as best we can in the term of this government, and I hope we can do it forever for this country.

[Poverty, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague for the work she has done on Bill C-245. I know how important reducing poverty in Canada is to her. It is also important to us.

This government is committed to reducing poverty and improving the economic well-being of all Canadian families so they can have a real chance to succeed. Our government is working on its first-ever Canadian poverty reduction strategy. The strategy will provide alignment with, and add to, the initiatives this government has already launched in the last budget and the strategies that already exist at both the provincial and municipal levels, as well as within our first nations communities and governments.

As part of the Canadian poverty reduction strategy, we launched two important initiatives that will support this development. These include a national consultation process and the implementation of an advisory committee on poverty. Through the consultation process, Canadians have the chance to share their opinions and their suggestions for more effectively tackling poverty. They can do this through an online consultation, which also includes discussion forums.

We are also holding in-person round tables with businesses, community organizations, academic experts, and, most important, Canadians with a lived experience who have come through or championed themselves as they succeed despite the poverty they may have endured.

We will also collaborate with indigenous organizations to ensure that the voices of first nations, Inuit, and Métis people are heard through this process.

For the advisory committee on poverty, I invite all Canadians with experience in poverty and with poverty reduction strategies to share their views and apply online at Canada.ca to take part in the selection process. This committee will help identify the best ideas resulting from the public consultations and will also provide expertise and independent advice to the minister.

There is more. Our government has also launched the tackling poverty together project that was done earlier this year in Saint John, New Brunswick. This is an important research project that is currently under way. It is dedicated to understanding poverty and identifying what can be done to lift Canadians out of poverty from coast to coast to coast. The results from the project, which will also involve case studies in six distinct communities across Canada, will help us better understand the impact that poverty is having and opportunities for poverty reduction programs in different communities that have identified poverty as an important issue.

Furthermore, our colleague knows that we have already announced important measures, for example, in budget 2016, that will reduce poverty among children, seniors, indigenous peoples, and all Canadians in need.

These measures are not limited to, but include the following: increasing the guaranteed income supplement with a top-up of almost $947 annual for the lowest-income single seniors, most of whom are women; cancelling the Conservative increase in the age of eligibility for OAS, changing it from 67 back to 65, again helping hundreds of thousands of Canadians; introducing the tax-free Canada child benefit, which is better targeted to those who need it most, low- and middle-income families and, most important, poor families across this country, to prevent them from falling into poverty. We have also doubled the investment in affordable housing funding, bringing the total federal investment to over $1 billion over the next two years, with the promise of a national housing strategy on the horizon.

Once again, I would like to congratulate my colleague for raising this important issue in this House and across this country and for the tremendous work she does and the focus she brings to the goals that she and I and our government share. She has raised awareness that reducing poverty can be done in Canada. She has put this on the table for us to debate. We will deliver on these issues because they matter to all of us as Canadians, all of us as parliamentarians.

[Housing, February 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, our government believes that all Canadians deserve safe and affordable housing. That is why we have invested more than $2.3 billion over the next three years to do just that.

We also increased the down payment requirements in December to address pockets of risk, in particular in Toronto and Vancouver.

In budget 2016, our government has also allocated $500,000 to Statistics Canada to study the phenomena that were causing some of the housing prices to spike, and we will be looking at policies and opportunities to make sure that we sustain affordability in the private market. We will continue to keep our focus on that issue, because it matters to Canadians.

[Points of Order, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of order, I will acknowledge that during the S. O. 31 by the member opposite, I did respond, but it was in exasperation and in frustration. My seatmate just yesterday spoke about landing a Yazidi refugee in his riding, and I was simply bringing it to the attention of the members opposite. Perhaps—

[Housing, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, homelessness is a reality in Canada for far too many Canadians. We recognize this is a challenge for Canadian communities right across the country.

The critical issue here is to make sure that we get good advice from across the country, including the provinces and the communities identified by the member opposite, and compose an expert panel to give us that advice so that we can move forward on a new national housing strategy.

This government has not waited for that strategy. We have already invested an extra $111 million in homelessness services, doubling the amount that was there previously. We will move forward to make sure that people in this country get the housing they need and the representatives of that committee will help us.

[Stuart McLean, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, no three words could stop spring cleaning or quiet a car full of nine year olds quite like Dave and Morley.

Stuart McLean was one of Canada's great storytellers, and he passed away yesterday. People did not need to be near a radio to hear this news. The story spread across the country in the most proper way to define this man, person to person to person.

When Stuart McLean started a story, people were never quite sure if they were going to burst out laughing or shed a tear. He made the characters of Dave and Morley, Stephanie and Sam, and Arthur the dog so real that we felt like they lived around the corner.

Stuart gave voice to this country. He shared our music with us. He shared my hometown with others and others with mine.

As a former colleague, as one of my former constituents, and as a neighbour, I have lost a friend. Our country has lost a gentle soul. His family has lost so much more.

The Vinyl Cafe may be dark today, but Stuart McLean's stories will be told forever more in Canada.

To quote Stuart, “So long for now”.