Adam Vaughan

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the comments from across the way, one is brought to a set of observations that make us think we still ought to be invading the beaches in Normandy. In other words, no matter how the theatre of war changes, no matter how the conversation is modified with our allies, no matter what new developments occur over the course of the year, the first impulse must be sustained and repeated.

Will the members opposite not acknowledge that consolidating the gains, setting in motion training and intelligence support that protect populations on the ground and continuing to work with our allies to modify our strategy as the conditions change is the most appropriate way to proceed with prosecuting this military excursion?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, once again I googled the constitution that the member referenced, in terms of PSAC, and once again it found provisions for secret ballots all the way through the constitution. If a member of a union disagrees with a position taken by the executive, through secret ballot he or she can change that, unless of course the majority of the union disagrees with that individual.

The reason we refer to this as a back-door process is not that it is a private member's bill; it is because the changes that were being brought to independent democratic organizations were being done, not through a full parliamentary process, not through the full parliamentary debate to which government bills are subjected, but through a truncated one that the private members' bills go through. It is a different process, and to pretend otherwise is to pretend that this place does not treat private members' bills differently from government business.

My question for the member opposite is very simple. Secret balloting is available to him to change the platform and the policies of his union. Why did he choose to come to Parliament to affect the union business rather than stay in the union and affect it through the process guaranteed in the constitution to which he has signed on? Why did the member not stay in the union and change that with his membership, unless of course the members disagreed with him and disagreed with the bill that his party brought forward?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to debate this afternoon and I keep hearing the reference to the secret ballot. The speaker just before spoke about the need for a secret ballot so we could curtail certain activities of the union: political activities, advertising activities, even the setting of dues.

I went to the union that was referenced and I read their bylaws, available on Google. Every single person making a decision in that union is elected by secret ballot. I was wondering if the member opposite could provide further detail as to the use of the secret ballot as prescribed in both international and national organizations. How extensive is the use of the secret ballot in establishing union policies, union dues, union membership, as well as union executives who make the decisions on behalf of the delegated authority ascribed to them through a secret ballot, which will not be affected by this legislation in one way or another?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments from across the way and was reminded of a parliamentary secretary who ended up in leg irons. I do not think I ever covered an election campaign as a journalist where there were not allegations of cheating. In fact, court cases proved that. In fact, young people from that party who were sent to the courts as adults did not face justice. Now we are being lectured on what transparency and ethics should be adhered to in this House.

However, what really confused me in the speech we just heard was the member's own rhetoric. On the one hand, it is a Conservative bill that is to be repealed; on the other hand it is a private member's bill. Which is it? Was the bill that is to be repealed introduced by the Conservative Party through the back doors of private members' bills? Or, was it government legislation masquerading as private members' business?

When they introduce a private member's bill, they do so knowing that it will not be subjected to the full scrutiny of this House because that is the process. That is the process that a private member's bill goes through that a government bill does not.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and I am a little troubled.

There are political parties that stand for small government. We hear parties talk about the reach they want into every single civil institution, whether it is a first nations band or a labour union. Next they will be deciding whether or not the members of the church we send across to Rome to elect the pope should have to publicly declare how they are voting and spending their dollars.

How far a reach would that party deem to be justified? Would it be reaching into every self-organized, democratic body in this country, deciding that it will make the decision on what is good for them, that it will assess the dollars spent as to whether it is in keeping with Canadian principle? How far a reach does this party contemplate? How many democratic institutions does it want to run besides itself in this Parliament?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of my colleague across the way and take very seriously her challenge to remember our sisters, our mothers, particularly my mother, and our daughters.

The concept of equal pay for equal work is hopefully rooted in all of our consciences now, but it goes beyond that. The issues the hon. member has spoken to illustrate how much more work is done beyond the pay slip. It is also about ensuring that equal opportunity is afforded to women so they can take their place, as my colleague, a minister in the previous government, stated, in the social, economic, cultural, and in all realms of the country.

Pay equity is the first step. What does the member see as the next step we need to take to ensure that women have their rights and their position in society properly sorted by this Parliament?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in my lifetime, I have seen advancements on pay equity. In Ontario in the early 1990s, with an NDP government in Queen's Park, to give credit where credit is due, we saw very strong pay equity legislation, only to be followed immediately by a Conservative government that effectively wiped it all out.

As we contemplate pay equity and a stronger campaign to ensure that women are paid properly, fairly, and that we achieve this important goal, what provisions would the Liberals contemplate to ensure that the next government could not come along, set the clock back, and put women in a position of vulnerability once again? What provisions could be put in place to ensure the next government, if there is one, and we hope there is not, could never roll back this important achievement being discussed and debated today?

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I share the analysis, quite frankly. Our language may differ but, again as I said in the speech, our goals are the same.

It is about inequality. It is why there is a proposal for a tax increase on the top 1% of wage earners contained in this bill. It is why it would shift the TFSA. Instead of maximizing the capacity in terms of people's contributions to it, it would sustain it at its current level because we see it as an effective tool, but we do not see it as a one-size-fits-all cure-all for some of the challenges.

Alleviating poverty, getting people in low-income situations on a path to middle-class existence, growing the capacity and the size of the middle class, and creating fairness in our society are the goals of our government. This particular bill addresses one particular strategy: income tax for a very specific group of people who have income. However, in dealing with lower-income Canadians or those on social assistance, a whole different approach is required. Cutting taxes for a single senior on CPP would not deliver opportunities or support. Boosting CPP would, and we will see measures addressed specifically to that group as part of a larger equity agenda as our budget unfolds in the weeks and days ahead.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will deal with the question specifically in English, and I apologize.

The move we have made to double the summer employment program is a very interesting one. We could have, perhaps, chosen to raise minimum wages for a very small percentage of federal workers and try to pretend that we are helping young people get work by paying them better even though it is not as broad-based an approach as possible.

However, in doubling the summer employment program and ensuring small businesses are eligible and by not raising their taxes, we would give businesses the capacity to hire. By assisting in the hiring, doubling the grants, and putting more money into the system so more students can be hired, we see it as a comprehensive way to get at one of the groups that have the most difficulty getting employment, one of the groups suffering from low employment, wages, and opportunities: youth.

There are other ways to approach these programs that are contained within our platform, and they are part and parcel with a holistic approach to alleviating poverty, building a strong middle class, and delivering a different approach than perhaps enunciated by some of our members opposite. It is not that raising minimum wages is a bad idea, and I do not think we criticized the idea. The question is this. When we have limited resources and we are in volatile economic times, what is the way we can have the biggest, most direct impact and work with the partners in the economy to deliver results? We would not raise taxes on small businesses or on large corporations; we would leave those dollars in the economy. However, then we would direct activity toward full employment, in particular for young people in this country, as a way of moving this country forward together. It is a different approach, but it is the right approach, and the electors certainly supported it.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the question as presented by that inquiry is quite a simple one. What is the best way to provide support for the lowest of income earners in this country? Is it tax relief or other programs that deliver resources straight to their pocket?

We believe the changes we are bringing to the child tax credit, the changes we are bringing to EI eligibility, and the changes we are talking about around CPP—the changes we are talking about in totality—are our best approach, and I think it is the best approach and the approach supported by the majority of Canadian voters, the approach to deliver relief to poverty in this country.

I do not disagree with the goal that was stated in the question. What we disagree with is the strategy. I do not believe that cutting taxes for low-income earners is the quickest, best, or most sustainable way to prevent poverty and to build opportunities for people in low incomes to move into stable, middle-class earning capacities.

It is a difference in strategy, but it is not a difference in terms of goals.