Adam Vaughan

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the east coast for his good words, and I share his analysis that we need to work through a consensus-based approach in Parliament to do what we can to make Canadians not only feel safe, but in fact be safe.

I have listened to the Conservatives, many from rural parts of the country. They talked about the need for sentencing, as if because we have made murder illegal it somehow has been stopped, simply because we have made it a criminal act. I have also heard them attack mandatory minimum sentences and talk about the increase in gun violence that has occurred underneath a regime of mandatory minimum sentences that have done nothing to stem the growth of gun violence.

I work with mothers in my riding who have lost their children to gun violence. What they are saying is that if we want to stop it, we need to invest in jobs and housing and attack systemic racism in the justice system, especially in the sentencing provisions but also within prison and the way police arrest.

I am just curious, because the member mentioned the border and because we have had several significant arrests recently in Toronto precisely because of the investments we made at the border, whether he would work with us through committee to strengthen border provisions to stop all handguns coming across the border and whether he would—

[The Budget, April 20th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a parade of Conservative MPs today talk about the need to create choice in the child care system, and “choice” is an interesting word to use.

Farmers in the Prairies can choose to take a bushel of wheat and walk it down to a road, then walk that road to Vancouver and then swim across the ocean to China to sell it or they can choose to use the system of roads the public has built, the rail system the public has built and the port system the public has built and utilize that system, choose that system, to get better results for the bushel of wheat they want to sell.

Child care is no different. We all support parents having the right to choose where to place their kids while they work or go to school, but if we do not have a system to choose between and we limit our choices to individual options, we get the same result as trying to swim wheat to China. We do not get any results.

Will the member opposite agree that if those members are going to support choice and support the market of opportunities for parents, they have to build the child care system for choices to be present for parents to make those choices they seem to think they support?

[The Budget, April 20th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, there is a street in my riding called Manning Avenue, named after Archbishop Manning from England. Years ago he said, “What we will, we are, and what we are, we do.” I know I cannot cure the leader of the NDP of his cynicism, and all politicians should take responsibility for the cynicism that grows in politics when we do not deliver as accurately and as strongly as we want to.

He has said he is going to vote for this budget. I appreciate the support and the stability that is implied in that commitment. How can we move toward establishing child care? His party in British Columbia talks about giving all the powers to the provinces, and letting the provinces do what the provinces are going to do. He says that in British Columbia, but in Ontario the results would be devastating. We already saw the Ford government's response to our budget yesterday. Its members sound much like their Conservative counterparts in the House. They do not like public child care.

Will the NDP support us in making sure that the federal government negotiates a strong deal with the provinces and that we do not succumb to provincial desires alone in creating this new, national program? Will he back off saying one thing in B.C. and a different thing in Ontario when it comes to establishing child care?

[Criminal Code, March 24th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I do have a point of order. If the member opposite would care to check the record and check the facts, he would see that I actually supported his colleague's motion. I spoke to it in the House and was thanked by many of the member's colleagues for standing on that principle, not because it is a preventative measure, but because I do not think guns should be coming into this country.

[Criminal Code, March 24th, 2021]

Point of order. Point of order. That is not an accurate representation of my vote. If you—

[Criminal Code, March 24th, 2021]

My apologies.

We will give the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton the opportunity to respond.

[Criminal Code, March 24th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, my father, who was a political commentator, once referred to a Conservative minister of justice as the “minister of crime and punishment”, and I am very proud to be speaking on behalf of a government that has a minister of justice.

The Conservatives have several times referenced the discretion of the police in the justice system, and it is clear that Conservatives trust the police more than judges. I will let them explain that.

Extreme crimes would still get extreme sentences. That is clear. This bill deals with mandatory minimum sentences, and is focused more on prevention than on punishment. The former governments' approaches, Liberal and Conservative, clearly have not worked. The situation is getting worse. It is getting more violent and there are more victims. The status quo is unacceptable.

Every time we talk about prevention, whether it is gun control or new investments in housing, child care, education, health care or recreation, Conservatives vote against prevention. There is no evidence, none, that mandatory minimum sentences prevent crime. There is none.

If there is no evidence mandatory minimum sentences prevent crime, what are Conservatives prepared to do to stop a crime before they respond to it with more punishment? Why are they more interested in building jails than building housing, saving people rather than saving—

[Rapid Housing Initiative, March 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, a little over 20 weeks ago, our government announced the rapid housing initiative, a $1-billion investment. It did not just protect people in precarious shelters from COVID. It was also accompanied by a bold commitment in the throne speech to end chronic homelessness.

I am proud of, and quite frankly amazed by, how the program has achieved its stated goals. The plan was to create 3,000 units of housing and to work directly with municipalities and frontline housing providers. By working with the cities we can move fast, but by working with housing providers we also managed to make the dollars work deeper. Over 4,777 units of housing were created and acquired. Almost two-thirds of the projects in the project stream will fund indigenous-led housing programs and, because many of these units will house families and children, the actual number of people housed will be well clear of 5,000 people. When added to the now $70 billion national housing strategy, it is clear that ending homelessness is within reach.

Our government knows there is more to do, but we also know what works. The good news is that there is more good news on the way.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the long litany of what I assume were facts that the member presented. Although I am a journalist, every time journalists hear a politician use a number with a zero at the end it, we get a little nervous. They either round it up or round it down for political reasons. Fifty-four per cent of his party members cannot even get their head around the facts of climate change, so I will spare my analysis of his representation of the facts.

The member referenced Australia. I would like to know from the member opposite whether any trucks crossed an international border to get to Australia during the pandemic, or whether nurses in a city in Australia crossed a river to get to work in another country and provided health services in a place like, say, Detroit, during the pandemic and then had to return home at night.

I would like to ask the member opposite as well, as he cherry picks everything, about his lavish, all-inclusive, champagne and penthouse trip to Taiwan with his wife, which was completely somehow avoided in his disclosure to the offices of Parliament. I would like to ask whether his indulgence with free travel played a role, in his quoting of Taiwan as a country to cite around COVID—

[Employment Insurance Act, March 11th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the HUMA committee, I would like to address some of the allegations that were raised. We often hear the Conservatives in particular and the opposition in general complain that government members on committees are puppets of the centre. However, when we act independently and in faithful ways with integrity to move committee business forward, we are told we should be checking in with the centre regarding the motions we present and the actions we take to process the business of Parliament. This is hypocritical and contradictory in a way, but I will let the opposition explain the inconsistencies.

When opposition members, in good faith, present us with a problem, why are they angry with us when we present the solution? I appreciate that timetables are urgent here, but critiques are much easier to lob than solutions. Solutions require drafting legislation and fitting it into a fiscal framework to make sure issues work. When they present us with a challenge to address, why are they mad when we address the issue? Why does the complaint suddenly turn to timetables instead of the fundamental principle at play?