Adam Vaughan

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge the presentation by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway. Members of his caucus have been raising this issue with great clarity, great intelligence and with great compassion. I would like to acknowledge the efforts they have made to get the House to act faster, not just this year but over the last couple of decades, on this issue, and in particular the MPs who come from Vancouver.

Some of the issues he has raised we have addressed. I have sat with the big city mayors, and in particular Mayor Gregor Robertson of Vancouver, and listened to their calls for action. I immediately approached the Minister of Health. We are moving on those urban issues very quickly in concert with our cities, because cities and towns are on the front lines of this issue.

We have the call for a national disaster and immediate action, which is being taken by the government. What actions in the national disaster designation are not being taken as a result of us not designating it that could not be taken as a result of good advice from the member opposite? In other words, we believe we are doing everything we can. What would the additional designation do that we are not doing now?

[Points of Order, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Standing Order 18 protects all members of this House from offensive words spoken by any other member of this House. Words and actions carry weight.

I would like to bring attention to events which took place yesterday during question period. When the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities stated that he was a former bus driver, members of the opposition began to laugh.

I think I speak for many members of this House when I say that laughing at the previous employment status of a member of this House is offensive, especially when that service was a public service to the people of this country.

Every member of this House deserves to represent their constituents. Every member's diversity of employment adds to the richness of this House. I would ask that the laughter be withdrawn and the record be corrected. This is offensive to the values of this House, to the values of Canadians, and to the diversity of all of us.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has identified what is in her mandate letter, and what her work plan is. She has prioritized things like reversing the unfair elections act that your party put in place, and changing the way vulnerable populations have access to the ballot box so they can participate in the electoral process.

I would say that democratic reform is not simply the way one votes, it is also the way in which committees are structured, and how they engage the public and tour the country.

When we look at the all-of-government approach, yes, ministers have individual files and responsibilities to the Prime Minister and to this House. However, when we look at them in sequence and collection, we had to reshuffle priorities, and we did. We have been open and accountable about what we see as the priorities. They are housing, indigenous affairs, and the health care accord, which has the home care money embedded into it if the provinces would sign on. All of that is a set of priorities, and it is the opposition's job to evaluate whether those are the right or wrong ones. However, I can say that this government is clear on where it is going.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the New Democrats to get in the head space of an opposition party, pretend to understand facts that are not true and then pretend that they are, and it is another thing to get inside a caucus room and then report it back the way the member just did. However, I will leave those comments there.

Let me say three things.

The first is that the Prime Minister is a proud and dedicated parliamentarian. If Parliament speaks with a single voice, he listens. That is true.

The second is that the member opposite uses this analogy of walking and chewing gum at the same time. I would remind him that no matter how big one's mouth is there is only so much gum one can put in it at any given time, and sometimes it is not a question of whether one is walking, it is a question of whether one has to run to get to a response and solutions because the urgency is there.

The third is with respect to this notion that we were silent on this issue. The member knows, as the Speaker would know as he has seen me cross the floor to talk with this member, that we were not silent, that we had conversations with that member, and other members. He knows that members on this side of the House reached out to members on the other side of the House and talked. One of the reasons we were silent while we listened was because we were engaged in trying to find the common ground and not simply establish a battleground.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the very soft-spoken, humble, and frequently heard member for Winnipeg North as I address this issue.

First, this is an important issue, and I want to begin my comments by acknowledging the residents of the riding I represent, the individuals in particular who turned out to the town hall meeting I held on this at Toronto City Hall. I also want to acknowledge the organizations Leadnow, 350.org, the Canadian Labour Congress, and other social agencies that took the time to visit with me in the office and present ideas and briefs on this issue. I also want to acknowledge the letters that came in during the campaign, the conversations at the door, and the letters that have flowed from the decision we made last week. It is clear that people are engaged to a degree on this issue in different ways, with different principles and different ideas, and their input and advice is one of the best parts of this job that I hold on their behalf. Talking with them and dialoguing is critically important, and I want to thank them for their effort to move this agenda forward and to create a consensus on a particular system, a consensus that unfortunately has failed to materialize.

I also want to thank the parliamentarians for their work on this file: the critics I talked with, the committee that has worked on this, and the ministers. It was not just a commitment made in an election campaign. It was a commitment made in this House. An honest effort has been put into this issue over the last 18 months, as promised in the campaign platform, to try to find a consensus on a particular system on which to move forward with reform.

As has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister, by the minister, and by myself to my constituents, this is a commitment on which we do not see a way forward clearly and quickly, and we have had to make a decision.

There are a couple of reasons for this, and one I think is important. As a former journalist, I have covered politicians who have changed course on issues, and members can look it up and watch the videotape. If we as a country, let alone a democracy or a Parliament, are unable, with new evidence, new circumstance, and new challenges, to change direction, if all we rely on is ideology and a preconceived set of platforms to rule every issue and govern every decision, if we are unable to have that flexibility, I think we are not democratic. I believe we have to listen and we have to work with the opposition, with our citizens, with civil society in all of its forms and institutions, and when we make a commitment, we have to give it honest effort. However, if it is impossible to move forward or if there are other priorities that displace it, we have to be open and honest with the citizens of this country and with our colleagues in this House, and explain the decision we have made.

I think one of the things that is the hallmark of this government is not trying to spin this and not trying to skate away from it or just rag the puck and pretend we just could not get it done. We have made a decision, and it is appropriate and right that we be held accountable for that, but it is also right and proper for our reasons to be stated correctly.

The characterization by the other parties, in particular the party that has brought forward this motion, is that we never intended to keep this promise. That is just flatly wrong. If we check the record in the last Parliament, I voted for mixed member proportional. The NDP at that time launched a massive social media campaign in my riding saying I had not done that.

Craig Scott, the member who was defeated in part because of this sort of behaviour, led a campaign to say that I had not voted for his motion. The record shows completely the opposite. When we characterize someone's record deliberately and inaccurately for political gain, that is the cynicism about which we all need to be careful.

Let me tell the House why we had to shift gears on the issues. We have made another commitment not to bring omnibus bills forward. I was talking to a member of the Conservative Party the other day, a former minister, saying that I understand now why they might have been so tempted to fall into the trap of a perpetual stream of omnibus bills. That is in large part because getting single pieces of legislation through this House can be extraordinarily time consuming, based on the number of days we sit, the committee work that must follow, and the consultation that is derided as delay but I think fundamental to good government, the consultation that is required on tricky pieces of legislation such as marijuana, public safety, housing, and changes to the EI.

These are all programs that we are working on and consulting on, despite defined election promises to make sure that we get it absolutely right and that we incorporate ideas other than our own, which I think is the essence of good government. Quite often, we are told to move quickly and deal with this or slow down and consult. It is a contradictory set of criticisms that stand issue by issue. Sometimes we get co-operation and we can move something like the fentanyl response through the House quickly; other times, and I guess it is the opposition's job to slow us down, the opposition slows us down.

Looking at some of the issues in front of us, such as truth and reconciliation, and the good advice from the party opposite about needing to move faster, harder, and quicker and have more success in those files, that requires a legislative response, and we need to clear a path for that. As for the national housing strategy, that is the main reason I ran. Of all of the commitments that I made, I was unequivocal with my electorate that that was the highest and most significant priority for me, and that is why I sought office in Ottawa: to establish, fund, and deliver a national housing program. If I am asked whether there are different priorities and if I rank them, I do, and that is one of them. Getting that program through the House requires a legislative path.

The same can be said about immigrant resettlement. I just hear the party opposite say that we have stemmed the flow of immigrants into this country. For the last two years, this government has set the two highest levels of entry for refugees in the history of this government over 150 years, and yet we are being told that we stemmed the flow. This alternative approach to factual information is what sows cynicism. One could argue that we could do more, and I would invite the pressure to do more than 25,000 this year, as opposed to the 9,000 cap we inherited from the previous government.

I would see that as good advocacy on behalf of a vulnerable group, but we also know that when we bring in 25,000 refugees, because we are bringing them into a country that has not had immigrant resettlement services funded properly over the last decade, we have to have English as a second language, day care, language training for both men and women, which is not always distributed equally, housing, jobs and training, and a connection to and the recognition of foreign credentials. All of these things need to be in place in order to increase the 25,000 to 26,000, 27,000, or 28,000. We have to systematically build up that system. All of those programs require a legislative pass forward.

With the time in front of us, combined with the volatility of international affairs, which are changing some of the pressures on this government on a day-to-day, tweet-by-tweet basis, we need the flexibility to not only deliver on our mandate and the commitments that we have told Canadians are our priorities, we also need the flexibility to act on areas where none of us contemplated issues that needed to be changed. Therefore, we made a decision, and I am proud of that decision. I am proud of the decision to prioritize the needs of Canadians in a particular way.

Let me speak, finally, to this issue of consensus. There may have been consensus over certain general ideas, ideas that the system needed changing, ideas that mixed member proportional or some sort of proportional system was better than another system, but it came down to a precise system, with a precise number of MPs elected in a particular way, with particular majorities, particular regions, and particular methodologies. I respect the call from the parliamentary committee to have a referendum, which was later backtracked on by one of the parties included in that so-called consensus. When that issue materialized, that created even more complications to this file and even less consensus.

I held a town hall in my riding. There were New Democrats there. The New Democrats were explicit in saying not to hold a referendum. Who betrayed that voice at that party? I did not. The issue is this. There was a concise, precise, and honest commitment to try to change this system. We failed to find the common ground we thought might emerge in this Parliament and we have had to reassess the priorities we are challenged with in this country.

If I am being asked if continuing the work on this when no common ground is found, in fact, mostly just battleground is found, is more important than delivering a national housing strategy, I, as an elected representative from Spadina—Fort York, will sustain the most important commitment I made to myself, to my constituents, and to this country, which is to fight for a national housing strategy above all other priorities in the House. My colleagues know that is my priority and I hope the opposition understands that is my priority.

If I had to make a choice, we have to set priorities in a different order based on circumstance, evidence, and pathways forward as a Parliament. Quite clearly, the Liberal Party has had to make that choice. We will make that decision public, as we did, we will be held accountable, as we are being held right now, and we will move forward in a way that I think is responsible, honest, and clear.

That is the break from the past behaviour of other governments. It is the accountability that we take on this issue, the fact that we are willing to stand here and face this Parliament and talk about what our priorities are, and work so hard to get them delivered.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has formed six provincial governments in this country and has had the opportunity to reform electoral systems in jurisdictions where it had full and complete control as a result of the first past the post system. In Ontario, in particular, and I think the member was very familiar with this, when first past the post was offered an alternative and there was a referendum in Ontario.

I am wondering if the House could have the explanation as to why the NDP campaigned against a provincial referendum that would have provided mixed member proportional representation and why the switch in position is now being propagated as being consistent with NDP policy on a historical basis, when in fact it never actually supported proportional representation in Ontario when it had the chance to cast ballots or lead a conversation on that in the province?

[Toronto, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, insulting people because of where they come from is not just bad manners, it is wrong; so why are people of Toronto treated this way?

When some members say “Bay Street”, they hurl it around like an insult. In my riding, Bay Street is home to seniors, shopkeepers, unionized workers, senior citizens, and yes, a few corporate giants, but sneering at people because of what street they live on is just plain awful.

Recently, a different member of this chamber suggested that people in Toronto have no sense of community, that effectively we are bad neighbours. That is mean. It is silly, and it is wrong.

Nobody in this House should look down their nose at people just because of what part of the country they come from, regardless of whether it is a town, a region, or a province.

I am proud to represent the good people of Toronto in this House. I love to call it home.

Let me tell members that we are all good people. Many of us come from members' hometowns. Whether it is shovelling each other's snow or giving gifts to the kid next door, we are a city full of great neighbours. Even if all people need is a cup of sugar, trust me, they can knock on their neighbour's door, and they will find some sweetness.

Insulting people because they come from Toronto is not just bad leadership, it is bad politics.

[Housing, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint John—Rothesay for his concern and advocacy on this issue, and in particular his strong support for the Outflow and Coverdale shelters in his riding.

Homelessness affects all of our communities, and all of us have a role to play in ending it. Yesterday, we announced the call for nominations to establish an advisory council of experts and stakeholders to help the government as it reviews and renews the homeless partnership strategy.

This committee, which I will chair, will have members chosen through an open and transparent process. Canadians with lived experience and people with knowledge of the program and who deliver front-line services will be encouraged to apply. I would also stress that indigenous and Inuit voices must be heard through this process. People can check Canada.ca for information.

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I have heard this word “courage” mentioned several times tonight.

Let me say that courage is not what one does when the cameras are on or when a country passes a policy that contradicts or is not consistent with the progressive traditions of this country. Courage is what people do when they need to act systematically and consistently to solve crises regardless of whether or not the world's media are talking about it.

This country, a year ago, let in 40,000 Syrian refugees. The courage of the other two parties was demonstrated in their campaign commitments: 10,000 from the NDP, 10,000, afraid of the backlash; and the party across the way that just finished the question committed to 11,800 over two years. That is not courage; that is cowardice.

The government has acted, not when the world's cameras were focused on it. The government is systematically tripling the number of refugees we have the capacity for, making sure refugees right across the globe are provided with assistance and refuge in this country, setting goals, not caps.

Does the member opposite not wish he had run for this party with the sentiments he just expressed? This party has the courage of its convictions, and this party is the party that is settling refugees.

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of the member for Calgary Nose Hill and my question is this. The extraordinary measures taken by this government to land 40,000 Syrian refugees into this country in the last year had an impact on countries in other parts of the world where refugees are also in desperate need of support. In fact, in Amnesty International's list of the top 10 countries generating refugees we find Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Central African Republic, and Eritrea.

Despite the fact that the member opposite asked us to slow down and increase security, despite the fact that the member opposite was part of the government that cut services to refugees, cut public housing, cut services around language training to immigrants and refugees over the last 10 years, my question is a very simple one. If we have an obligation to refugees, we have an obligation all over the world, not just one particular country or one particular population. If genocide is wrong, it is wrong everywhere. How do we clear the backlog created by the extraordinary effort to land 40,000 Syrians and balance that against the need to also respond to the refugee crisis right around the world in the countries I listed if we do not have a balanced approach that shares the burden of all countries and allows all countries access to our shores in order that they get refuge?