Adam Vaughan

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to several of the speeches and it seems members have settled on some statistics, even if we accept them as being accurate. We keep hearing about the 83% who are doing okay, that they are saving privately for their retirement, and that is good. Some of the programs the previous government put in place have helped that. We acknowledge that and have not changed them. In particular, the TFSA for seniors is a responsible and appropriate way to go forward.

However, what about the other 17% who do not have the capacity to save, do not have the income to save, do not have the good luck not to have to dip into their savings before they get to retirement?

Why can we not focus on what needs to be done for them beyond saying just get a job? Why can we not have a safety net in place for the poorest of the poor who are seniors, enhance the CPP, ensure the capacity is there to support these people if bad luck comes their way, even if they do all the other things the rest of us are doing to protect our security in our old age? Why can members not focus on that 17%?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, who has a new job title. The first two letters are J and O. I would suggest he add some more components to his job title, with kids excepted and seniors with nothing. In other words, the joke is on him.

That was not the best joke in the House today. Handwriting is not my long suit.

I keep hearing the other side talk about the 17% who do not. They say that a job is the best social program. Is the member really suggesting that kids go out and get a job if they need daycare? Is he really suggesting that seniors go back to work if they do not have the funds to retire? Is the job really the best social program for everyone, or are there some people who need support? If that support is needed, should that support not lift them out of poverty rather than keep them there?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite, and my fear is that his parents may have read way too much Ayn Rand to him as a child as a bedtime story. Failing that, perhaps he is on economic steroids and a drug test might be in order.

I heard a description of the CPP as a tax, which it is not, and then I heard that low-income families and low-income wage earners are going to be taxed at an unfair rate and will not be able to save as a result.

I realize that the member may have been paying into CPP for only a short period of time, but is he aware that the CPP is scaled to income and that low-income Canadians who do not have the capacity to save benefit the most from this program, particularly when they retire? Under our government, there is a 10% increase for single seniors, the poorest group of seniors. They are going to get that money immediately as a result of the steps we have taken to make sure that people can retire with dignity in this country.

[Paris Agreement, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite's statements and concerns, and I am not going to comment on the Premier of Alberta, who has welcomed this initiative. We now find out that the “P” in NDP stands for pipelines, apparently.

The newly minted Conservative Premier of Manitoba has said that they are working very hard on a plan that they think will excite Manitobans, and they look forward to further discussions with the federal government on the issues. They understand the new spirit of federalism that has taken hold, and they are working very hard.

I recognize that one or two premiers are struggling with this, and we have built a timetable into the process to make sure that we get as close to unanimity as possible.

I am also taken by the member's fascination with my riding and the condominiums of downtown Toronto. She is aware, of course, that not all residents of this country will experience climate change in the same way, nor will they experience the pollution that climate change generates in the lungs of children and families that live in those condominiums. I note that she routinely supports the island airport and routinely supports jets there. Jets, particularly short haul, are the highest single source of per capita greenhouse gases in this country.

If the member has such concern for the residents of different parts of this country, I wonder if she can put aside her regional focus and broaden her understanding of things like communities that live in condominiums, or in the far north, and actually come up with a collaborative process that succeeds in reducing greenhouse gases while transforming the economy while moving this forward.

Does the member have any ideas she can add that will cut greenhouse gases, while we build a new economy, and that will help the residents of my riding who happen to live in condominiums, which she routinely disdains and casts doubt and aspersions towards?

[Paris Agreement, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest both to the member's speech and also to the Prime Minister's presentation on this issue. I do not recall a single penny accruing to the federal government out of anything the Prime Minister said with regard to the announcement that was made.

I am also fully aware, and I hope the member is as well, that the consultations and the conversations and the dialogue with provinces have been going on since the day we took office. It continues now and it will continue into the future as we find a way to deal with climate change.

In what part of the Prime Minister's remarks did he hear and identify that the federal government was collecting revenue off the proposition of putting a price on pollution? Can he point to a single sentence that shows that the federal government would collect anything on a proposal that has been tabled?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the reports and concerns raised on human rights, concerns we all share, and noted that some of the dates of the reports were as far back as 2011. In other words, these abuses were well known long before the previous election.

During the last election, the NDP member for London—Fanshawe, where the factory that produces these vehicles is located, said a number of very definitive things in the campaign and made very definitive promises in the campaign, things such as, “It’s a signed deal. We recognize the impact this will have for General Dynamics”. She said that she had spoken to her leader and he was not wishy-washy on this, and that the NDP would honour the contract. She went on to say that it was a signed contract and she made a solemn promise to her constituents that the NDP would sign the contract.

In light of the fact that the human rights abuses that the NDP just detailed existed long before the election and these promises were made during the election, what has changed since the election that now says New Democrats can break the promise they made to the constituents of London—Fanshawe? Why are they being, in fact, so wishy-washy?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the constructive comments across the way toward the goal we all share of making sure that we have as effective and as strong a set of oversight provisions as possible.

The concern that was raised and needs to be explored is that there is an assumption that if we fix Bill C-51, we will have fixed the problem. We know that Bill C-51 touches more than 60 pieces of legislation and that oversight is not part of that bill and, therefore, that it has to stand alone in another bill. We also know that there are wider-ranging issues out there that extend beyond Bill C-51, if we are going to upgrade and update our rules and regulations around public safety.

Would they not agree that the consultations under way on the full range of public safety is the most responsible way to do it? Bringing those back to full public hearings and full parliamentary hearings is a massive change from the previous government, because it allows for full public input as we move forward with better legislation.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest and heard comments that seemed to suggest that the Prime Minister could rewrite the reports from this committee. The clause of the bill that governs the Prime Minister's authority here only refers to him being able to redact facts that may be of a classified nature and inappropriate.

If there is no provision for the Prime Minister to author a new clause, a new paragraph, or rewrite the bill, would the member opposite then support the bill as a result of that being clarified?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we are consulting with Canadians to make sure that we do not just focus solely on Bill C-51 but in fact address all of the security issues to ensure that when we come forward with legislation it embraces the full scope of what needs to be fixed to get the proper laws in place around public safety and protecting charter rights. The member is aware that consultation is under way, I hope the House understands that, and I would like to see a comment reflecting the importance of that consultation.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is my first time in the new Parliament. I apologize.

Budget 2015 actually built a budget and engaged in the de-radicalization process, even before reforms were being presented. That work is ongoing. You have acknowledged that. I would also like your comments on the fact that we are consulting with Canadians to make sure that we do not—