Adam Vaughan

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of advance consent or advance care directives was spoken to in the presentation to the House of the hon. member. My question is about how the timing in that regard could be spoken to in amendments to this legislation.

How would the hon. member see advance care directives provided at the age of 20 when the person will encounter difficulties maybe 30, 40, 50 years later? Alternatively, upon diagnosis of a situation and immediately entering into advance care directives, how would the hon. member model timetabling around that so as to review the person's decision before the ultimate act is pursued?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his considered remarks to the House, but I did not hear a reference to the notion or the concept of advance consent. I am curious as to whether he has thoughts on that issue and how those concerns may be addressed in the parliamentary process as this bill moves through committee.

Clearly, some of the other areas we understand as areas that need to be questioned and explored by committee. We accept that and think it is a good legislative process. However, I did not hear those remarks, and I am interested to hear the member's thoughts on that.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, part of the challenge we face is that for the last decade the law has not been enforced. The official opposition can cry all it wants about this, but it is literally crying over spilled milk. If it had done anything on this file in 10 years, we would not be having this dispute today.

Now we find ourselves in the situation of having imports that are quite obviously in contravention of rules and we are trying to figure out how to exit from that situation, which was what the promise was. If we read what the promise was, we see that it was to resolve the issue. It was not as described by the member opposite.

I understand how they can draw the same conclusion as to the result we are trying to get to, but the process we promised, which is important, was that we would resolve this issue.

In light of the fact there are cheese producers in Quebec and in other parts of this country that are currently under contract and involved in trade where this really wrong practice has been allowed to be moved forward, do they not recognize that exiting out of this situation, rather than just simply enforcing a regulation and cutting off supply to cheesemakers and to the people employed in that industry, requires us to evolve a solution to ensure that we do not disrupt every company in the process and that we get to the right place in the right way, so that we have a permanent solution to this problem, rather than just simply throwing enforcement at the issue?

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague would care to comment on a fundraising controversy that arose in the previous Parliament when the former minister of transport, who had been using a government agency to fax fundraising letters prior to being elected to the House, was caught using public assets to fundraise as a member of a federal port authority.

Subsequent to that, people who were appointed to that port authority by Governor in Council appointees who had been appointed by the previous government were then donating their salaries back to the political party that appointed them. That behaviour was dismissed as simply a Twitter battle and not anything of any significance. It is questionable whether that scandal was properly handled by the previous government and whether the ethical standards of that party should have any standing in the House to raise an issue like the one we have today when they could not follow those rules either.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question from my colleague opposite about unspent infrastructure money, which we know is a significant problem.

For the last two years, most of the major cities in this country, Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Mississauga, Montreal, and Halifax, have received no dollars in new federal infrastructure commitments. The money was largely unspent. It is one of the ways in which the faux balancing process of the previous government was achieved. One-time money from the sale of GM, unspent infrastructure money, and voila, there is a balanced budget in October, but come March, it does not quite work out.

Is my colleague aware that unspent infrastructure money in this budget will be flowed directly back to municipalities through the gas tax? This is a unique achievement in so far as the money committed now must be spent. Those provinces that are not stepping up to the plate and partnering will see their cities funded instead as a result of their lack of co-operation or lack of progress on these files.

It is a unique component in infrastructure funding. It will top up the gas tax money on a one-time basis, and will really be a game changer for municipalities across this country which will no longer have money promised and not delivered, as was the previous government's practice.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague across the way.

I wonder if he would like to comment on a report that has been waved quite often today in the House of Commons. It is the Department of Finance report that was released from the “Fiscal Monitor” in January 2016. Would he care to comment on this paragraph?

There can be significant volatility in monthly results due to the timing of revenue receipts and expense recognition. For instance, a large share of government spending is typically reported in the March Fiscal Monitor. For fiscal year 2015-16, while a surplus is expected for February, Budget 2016 projects that the cumulative budgetary balance will deteriorate to reach a year-end deficit of $5.4 billion.

In light of the fact that the Conservative government was the architect of this fiscal year, in light of the fact that the Conservatives never balanced the budget, not once in the last 10 years, is the member opposite prepared to resign from his party and join our side, a party that has balanced the budget?

[Rob Ford, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Toronto city councillor and former Toronto mayor Rob Ford who passed away this morning. Today our thoughts are with his family and in particular his two young children. The Fords are a strong family. Today we wish them even more strength.

As a former council colleague and as a journalist who had a front row seat to his career, Rob, and everyone in Toronto knew him as Rob, was a force to be reckoned with.

To see his life force extinguished so suddenly only underlines how horrid cancer is, how united we must be in fighting this disease, while we also stand and support the people and families living with cancer.

Rob can be remembered many ways, but there is a singular image that anyone who spent time at Toronto City Hall can recall very easily. It is an image of Rob with a clutch of pink phone messages calling back his constituents. As a public servant, he took this responsibility seriously and approached it with a passionate dedication that few have equalled.

Serving the public defined Rob, so did coaching football. It is how I remember him today and forevermore.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, again, if the membership of the RCMP choose to have a secret ballot, there is nothing that restricts them from doing so. If they choose to have an open ballot, there is nothing that forces them to have an open ballot beyond this legislation, but if they choose to have a secret ballot as part of their ratification process, they are entitled to make that choice.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, one issue that reoccurs in this House around labour negotiations and proposed changes to the framework in which collective bargaining agreements are reached is this notion of a secret ballot.

If the RCMP members or if the union they choose to represent them decide on a secret ballot mechanism for any vote within the collective agreement process, they are free to choose a secret ballot if they want. We do not have to mandate that. That is something that the union can choose to do, if it chooses to proceed in that specific direction.

We are not reaching into the union and mandating a secret ballot. The union has an option as an organization to operate and conduct its votes as it chooses. Is that not true?

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague explain why driving a terrorist who has been convicted of crimes in our country to the airport makes this world safer under the Conservative legislation than our proposal, which is keeping them in jail? Why would we support legislation that effectively exports terrorism around the world when we have a duty to protect our allies? Why would we not keep a convicted terrorist in jail rather than driving them to the airport?