Adam Vaughan

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

Madam Speaker, the member's participation in this debate, in the previous session and now, is one of engaged and intelligent comment, and I listened very seriously to it.

My concern is twofold. The first is that you do recognize that the previous budget that we just passed—

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the party across the way, and I used to think that Conservatives were a party for small government. However, it is a party, that while in power, and even now, talked about wanting to run charities and detailed how they are structured and get engaged as a government. It is a party that wants to get involved in unions and decide how they should be run and what rules should be followed. It was the same thing with the aboriginal communities. They wanted to decide how band councils should report to the membership and detailed that. In fact, private members' bills came forward on how to run political parties for the Parliament of this country. The amount of control that the Conservative Party wants in the everyday life of democratic social organizations is extraordinary.

If unions want a free vote or a private vote, is it not their choice? Does the member not believe in these sorts of freedoms being extended to self-organized, self-regulated organizations?

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the express need of Albertans to get infrastructure investments to get people back to work in very troubling times. I wonder if the member opposite would care to reflect on the fact that his government failed to sign an infrastructure agreement with Alberta in its last two years in office. That resulted in zero dollars in new infrastructure money being delivered to the major city of Edmonton, Alberta. Also, if they are truly concerned about getting Alberta back to work, why was the government so inept in delivering infrastructure dollars to a province that quite clearly needed it?

[Citizenship Act, June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to a presentation of the most revised history I think I have ever heard in this place. It was the government opposite 10 years ago that cut $56 million from settlement services in this country. The government opposite did that. The Conservative Party stood in the House and walked away from subsidizing affordable housing, but not only did that, did not build it. When the Conservatives took office, the wait list in Toronto was 76,000 persons, largely the result of a provincial Conservative government. When they left office, it was 97,000 households. If there is no affordable housing in this country, Conservatives ought to look in the mirror and explain to themselves what they did not do over the last 10 years.

The process of settling immigrants and refugees is something this party takes very seriously. We can see it in the infrastructure investments produced in the budget. We can see it in the investments to land 25,000 Syrian refugees in short order, a process the Conservatives opposed. They wanted fewer refugees and to bring them here much more slowly. The reason there was no housing and the reason there was not adequate immigrant support, in particular language studies, is because that party spent 10 years decimating the system to land people.

How does the member justify her comments when her party's record is exactly the issue that she is criticizing?

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the Prairies spoke eloquently about the freedom of trade.

We focused primarily on beer and liquor in much of this debate. I wonder if the member would like to reflect on the managed trade, which is what real free trade is. It is managed trade. It is not free. There are rules and regulations to virtually every trade agreement. That is why they are so thick.

However, one of the most interesting pieces of interprovincial managed trade, to the exclusion of other provinces, is the trade agreements around milk in the prairie provinces, the fact that, if they are selling milk from Quebec, they cannot actually sell into the prairie provinces without significant trade barriers being put in place. I wonder if his party is advocating the end of the milk quotas and the management of the milk trade in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. Is that the position that he advocates and that his party now advocates?

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there was a reference to what Canadians might do if they looked back over 50 years. If they looked back over 52 years, what they might see is the Hon. Irwin Cotler, one of the clearest and most distinct voices on human rights on the international stage, one of the people who put the duty of care provision into the United Nations.

It was he who first raised in this House the issue of the Syrian refugee crisis, and his motion to accept refugees was actually defeated by the previous government. I might also add that the opposition tried to slow down the arrival of refugees, tried to stop the arrival of refugees, and has fought the refugee process every inch of the way, including the most unusual practice of removing medical care for refugees in a move that the Supreme Court deemed cruel and unusual punishment. When it comes to the process of getting Syrians into this country, there is one party that opened the doors and there is another party that tried to keep those doors as closed as it possibly could. Now to lecture us on humanitarian values is, my God, unbelievable to listen to.

My question for the member opposite is this. It is not just a question of calling things a name and hoping that they stop. Prevention of these sorts of atrocities is even more important than anything else we can do as a government. Would the member opposite please talk about and reflect upon the preventive strategies that international development might play in stopping the atrocities? We do not care what we call them; they would simply not exist anymore.

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite seem to think that if they say the word genocide three times, spin around in a circle, and click their heels, suddenly something stops. It is as empty a set of rhetorical arguments as the notion that saying “Get out of Ukraine” suddenly solved the crisis in that part of the world.

Margaret Thatcher once said, “if you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman”.

In this Parliament, it seems if people want something said, they should choose the opposition; if people want something done, choose what the Liberal government is doing. What we are doing is actually setting the stage for the prosecution and the end of the atrocities. We think that these atrocities are just as evil as anyone else in this House.

What we are trying to do, and what we hope the opposition will support, is a move to declare this a genocide legally under the conventions of the United Nations. Additionally, we are not waiting for that action. We are taking actions specifically on the ground, with an increased support for the people who are fighting to stop this.

Would the members not agree that the action to stop this outweighs any word that they could ever attach to the atrocities, all of which we denounce with them?

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentations from the side opposite, particularly from the Conservative Party, and there is this sense that simply uttering a word is going to save a life; that simply uttering a word is going to suddenly transform action on the ground; that simply uttering a word, instead of taking direct action of landing more refugees, of providing more supplies on the ground to confront ISIL, of putting more action in place in terms of pursuing this legally through the appropriate international channels, is good enough. In the same way that simply saying that the CF-18s will stop something by flying overhead, it is absurd.

Why does the member think the other side prefers a single word to concrete action that is actually effective and being requested by the partners who are confronting this terrible situation?

[Committees of the House, June 7th, 2016]

Again, Madam Speaker, it seems the only thing the opposition seems to hate more than consultation is not being consulted. We are damned if we do and damned if we do not. The consultations, which have been wrapped up now, as we move toward the action that the opposition has asked us to take, are critically important.

My question is about the trade deal we have signed. I have not seen a trade deal signed and delivered to the House of Commons. I know not of what they speak. I know there are consultations about a proposed trade deal that has implications for the sector, but it has not been signed. In fact, we are now in consultation with the sectors, including the dairy sector, because all we have signed is the agreement on the wording that is to be discussed as part of a ratification process.

Would the member agree with me that no trade deal has been signed, despite what the opposition insists on today?

[Committees of the House, June 7th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it seems sometimes that the only thing the opposition hates more than consultation is not being consulted.

The process to solve this problem requires a comprehensive sectoral approach. Yes, supply management must be and will be protected. That is the policy of our government. Yes, the situation is unsustainable as it currently is configured, and the damage that is being done to family farms is recognized. Be assured that every single member of our caucus who represents farms has been speaking up on the issue among all of us to ensure we are aware of the seriousness of the situation.

However, the dynamic that is critical to understand is what has to be balanced here. There are 22,000 people employed on dairy farms in our country, but there are also 22,000 people employed in the manufacturing of cheese and dairy products who also need to make sure their supply chain and their work is protected in a comprehensive settlement, so we do not lay off people in one sector as we try to resolve an issue in another sector.

It is a complex issue we are dealing with here, and the reason we are consulting is to make sure that we protect the whole industry when we move, not just part of the industry.

Would the member opposite like to comment on the fact that 22,000 people are employed in the dairy industry in our country and their jobs are just as important to protect as dairy farmers?