Karen Vecchio

[Employment, May 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited to see the parliamentary secretary here today. He is the kind of person with whom I would like to have this type of conversation. I have a feeling he and I probably might find a balanced approach to what we need to do with the Canada summer jobs program.

I will start with the question I asked initially when we came back in January of this year, following a very tumultuous and contentious Christmas, when we started to talk about the Canada summer jobs program. I will read the question I asked that day so I can remind members where we were with this conversation. I asked:

Mr. Speaker, despite being forced to settle a constitutional court case regarding Canada's summer jobs last year, the Liberals are attacking the very people they claim to help.

By forcing groups to sign the Prime Minister's values test, the government is denying help to groups that provide aid to refugees, run day camp programs for kids with disabilities, and help at-risk youth. On behalf of these organizations from across Canada, will the Liberals finally remove this values test from the Canada summer jobs application?

That was the beginning of this conversation. When we are in question period, a lot of things are being put out there. However, instead of having a reply, indicating that the Liberals did not think it was the best option to be giving advocacy groups, it was the idea that I would not support the rights of women. It was absolutely ludicrous. With the parliamentary secretary here today, I know we will have a much better conversation and I really expect that. The issue is the discussion that carried on.

On March 1, I had the pleasure of putting forward a motion to the House of Commons, asking the government to fund the Canada summer jobs programs for day cares and for a lot of groups that were doing advocacy for their hometowns, for their communities. We have talked about the day camps. We have talked about helping prepare meals for seniors or coaching a kids' soccer teams I have heard of a lot of Canada summer jobs students who have participated in activities like that. This is really a great program. For years, I worked with the prior member of Parliament for Elgin—Middlesex—London on these programs so know the types of results we had. We had great jobs and great kids coming out of these programs.

However, this year the government decided to put in the attestation. The problem I have is that one day the Liberals are saying no to our faith groups and the next day they are saying yes to our pipeline protestors. It makes no sense. I ask the Liberals to pick a side and go with it. They cannot have both.

Part of the problem is that the Liberals are talking about the attestations and then say they have put in an explanation, that people can sign the attestation because there is an explanation of what the government is doing as long as people are not doing something that is anti-abortion or anti-LGBTQ. The fact is that people are not signing the summary of what they can and cannot do. They are signing an attestation. Many people look at it as a legal document about their beliefs and they cannot attest to that.

Because of all of this, I went back and looked at the community funding for the last 13 and 14 years in Elgin—Middlesex—London. Not one single time did the organizations fund anti-abortion, pro-life, or anti-LGBTQ. However, this year alone 35 different organizations did not apply for funding, and the majority of those did not apply because of the attestation. They were against what they thought the government was doing.

Does my hon. colleague believe the Canada summer jobs program should have returned to the old ways or does he think this has become a huge boondoggle because of the attestation?

[Infant Loss, April 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, today I would like to start by commending my hon. colleague, the member for Banff—Airdrie, for putting forward this compassionate motion on behalf of his constituents and all Canadian families from coast to coast. I offer congratulations. This motion is exactly the type of thing we should be looking at as parliamentarians.

I want to share with everybody what this motion truly is. It is an opportunity for us to grow together, an opportunity to make sure that we can work together to do what benefits our Canadian families.

The motion states:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be instructed to undertake a study of the impact on parents who have suffered the loss of an infant child, including in the case of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), to consider, among other things, (i) ways to improve the level of compassion and support for parents who have suffered the loss of an infant child, (ii) ways to ensure that parents do not suffer any undue financial or emotional hardship as a result of the design of government programming, particularly from Employment Insurance Parental Benefits; that the Committee hold a minimum of six meetings to hear from witnesses that include parents who have lost an infant to SIDS, organizations who advocate for SIDS families, experts in the area of grief counselling, as well as officials responsible for the Employment Insurance Parental Benefits program; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House within six months of the adoption of this motion, and that it be instructed to request a comprehensive government response to its report, pursuant to Standing Order 109.

I think we have to go back to why we are all in this House in the first place. Our roles are to be members of Parliament, and our role is to serve Canadians. This motion provides an opportunity for us to serve Canadians to the best of our ability. This motion focuses on people—not government, but people—and how federal government programs impact families at extremely difficult times in their lives.

This motion is not about asking the federal government to spend more money. It is not about partisan policy. It is about Canadian families and how we can serve them at an extremely vulnerable time.

When the member brought this motion forward to discuss further, I started to think about my own constituents in Elgin—Middlesex—London and the struggles that our families go through. Now add to that a significant event, the loss of an infant child.

This House will have the opportunity to begin to understand how federal programs can negatively impact families going through a crisis at a time when families need compassion and the support of the government.

The member for Banff—Airdrie has not only shared his motion but has also provided an opportunity for every member in this House to sit down and speak to families that have been affected. I would like to personally thank him for that, because having a face to an issue makes it real, and this motion and this issue are real for Canadian families.

I will share something with the House. Any time a member is giving a speech, we want to know what we are talking about. One of the things I did was refer back to the information from Statistics Canada. I would like to share the information, according to Statistics Canada in 2014. At that point, in 2014, there were a total of 1,794 deaths of children under the age of one. Most striking for me was the total number of deaths of infants between zero and 27 days of age. This staggering number is 1,395.

Just imagine a mom or dad waiting for that miracle to be born after a gestation period of 280 days, but they may only have one or two days, sometimes even just hours, with that miracle.

In Canada 1,395 parents have lost their child within 27 days. That is something we must recognize. As a parent, and I know there are many parents in this House, we all know what it is like to anticipate the birth of a child. It is a time when we become excited. We are out there shopping, buying Pampers, buying cribs, and doing all of those things. Just imagine: 1,395 children are lost in the first 27 days. That is 1,395 parents impacted because of this, and it is not just the parents: we also have to consider the grandparents, the siblings, and everybody around them.

We need to make sure that we are growing a support system. Our government can be part of that support system.

There are a number of causes of infant death, from sudden infant death syndrome to neonatal hemorrhaging. I would like to share a story that I read while compiling my research on this motion. It is from the Toronto Star, dated October 24, 2016, by Lauren Pelley.

This story has not so much about what the government must do; rather, it shares the story of a woman and her husband who had lost their child.

From this, I hope members see how important it is that we recognize the emotions that are going through a family:

Gillian Cooper was 38 weeks and two days pregnant when she realized something was wrong.

On that October morning in 2011, the nearly full-term baby inside her wasn’t moving. Cooper didn’t feel the little one’s typical kicks later while she was running errands, either. She came home and put her 3-year-old son Jackson and another child she was babysitting down for a nap—and still didn't feel any movement. She drank a cold glass of milk. Nothing. Then a glass of juice. Still nothing.

Cooper got nervous.

She went to the hospital with Jackson later that day and met her partner Jay, her stepson, and her friend Carady, and the whole group settled in for a lengthy wait.

When a nurse finally brought Cooper in to check for a heartbeat three hours later, she could only pick up Cooper’s, not the baby’s. An intern doctor and an ultrasound machine arrived next.

“We don’t know the sex yet,” Cooper recalls telling the doctor.

“It isn’t going to make a difference,” she recalls the doctor curtly replying.

Cooper’s own doctor came by shortly after to confirm the heartbreaking news: Cooper’s baby had died, less than a week before her scheduled C-section.

“I held [Jackson] tight and tried to stand up. They got me a wheelchair. The screaming and crying—I’ve never, and probably never will again, be that upset in my life,” Cooper recalls.

Still in shock from the loss, Cooper had to make a quick decision: Would she deliver the baby, or go with the C-section she’d originally planned?

“The thought of pushing a dead baby out of my body...” Cooper trails off, speaking to the Star from her home in Toronto. She opted for a C-section.

Since losing the baby—a 7-pound boy named Carter—because of a knot in his umbilical cord, Cooper has been sharing her story of the pain and heartbreak that accompanies a stillbirth, a rare but devastating outcome during pregnancy that remains hush-hush despite its emotional toll on women and their families.

I want members to take the story of Gillian Cooper and imagine what she and her spouse are feeling, imagine what Jackson is feeling, and imagine the pain and devastation to this family. I have provided this information. Although fewer than 2,000 children die under the age of one, we have to recognize the impact it has on Canadian families. It is not rare for these sorts of things to happen, and we also have to realize that it is extremely traumatic.

What happens next is what we as parliamentarians can discuss. We can take a story like Gillian Cooper's and think about how we can be part of the solution to help make things easier for someone like Gillian Cooper. We have an opportunity to think about how federal government programs impact these families, which have gone through a horrific experience.

I want to share some things that we as members may not be aware of.

If a child is ill, a parent can take up to 35 weeks off during the child's illness through Service Canada under the critically ill benefit, but this is not extended beyond the date of death. For instance, if a child has been ill for 34 weeks and then passes away, the parent's employment insurance critical benefits cease at the time of the child's passing. Some members may say that there is a simple solution, which is to switch it over to sick benefits. Sure, it sounds fine, but there needs to be an advocate. There needs to be somebody there on behalf of this family. There needs to be somebody advocating and making sure the family is getting the customer service that this government and all governments should be providing, which Service Canada has the ability to do.

What would we do to help a family? Is there a way we can adjust this to make sure that transitions are smoother for these families? Should this be an automatic transition from one type of benefit to another? This is exactly what this study would do. It would look at these benefit programs and how we as parliamentarians can look at these sad times and make a difference in somebody's life.

How about someone who is on maternity leave? A person is eligible for 15 weeks of maternity leave, but let us say that the child passes on week 14. Do members of Parliament know that the person on maternity leave is granted only one more week? The mother is given only 15 weeks of maternity leave, meaning that she is expected to go back to work after her 15 weeks, after the loss of her child.

I just want to remind everybody that this is an important motion. There is not a lot of time for these families, but we need to make sure that we give them the time. We must make the time. I ask members to vote in support of this motion so that we can study this in committee and make a difference for the families that need us, when they need us most.

[Supporting New Parents Act, April 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to stand in the House and support the private member's bill put forward by Canada's Conservative leader and the leader of the official opposition that supports new parents. Bill C-394, the supporting new parents act, is a policy that works in the best interest of families, in the best of interest of children, and in the best interests of Canadians.

Canadians have seen many changes in the employment insurance program, specifically to maternity and parental benefits. This specific change provides support to families by providing tax relief on their employment insurance benefits. Currently, employment insurance is taxable under each and every program. This new refundable tax credit would benefit Canadian families at a time when it would be truly needed by the families.

Let us have some fun with this, and I will let everyone take part in this. As a parent, I understand how much it costs to purchase diapers. I went on to my little app, and currently at Walmart, a case of Huggies Little Snugglers diapers for newborns costs $29.97 and provides 88 diapers. According to the New Kids-Center, a site where one can find out how to parent, a newborn uses, on average, 10 to 12 diapers per day, per month. Sometimes I fell asleep, so I am sure I used less. Still, at 35¢ a unit, the cost is $4.20 a day. The total cost per month for diapers alone for a newborn is $130. Although the number of diapers used per month may go down as the child grows up, the cost per unit goes up. Regardless, we are looking at an average cost of about $130 a month just for diapers. This is just some basic parenting 101.

The supporting new parents act is a plan proposed by a parent in the House who knows a lot about diapers and children. When we have a leader of the opposition, our Conservative leader, bring forward legislation like this, he does it because he understands family. He understands what it is like to raise children and the cost of that He and Jill have had many children, as he discussed, so he understands what it is like.

If we were to add his family to my family we could field an entire baseball team, with one substitute. I do not think there are a lot of people in the House who could do that. This is coming from two parents who have spent a lot of money on diapers, so I understand this. There is a personal feel to it.

Currently parents of newborns receive anywhere between 33% and 55% of their income, whether they are taking extended benefits that now go to the 18-month period. As the chair of the status of women committee, we talk a lot about women and equality. As was brought forward in committee, one of the biggest things parents who are stay home with their child look at is loss of income. Who is going to choose to stay at home with the child? They may be looking at the opportunity to stay beyond the six-month parental leave, to be taken by the mother or the father. A lot of times that decision comes down to who is making the most money. Therefore, that person will continue to earn their benefits and the other person will stay home. The bill would help make the decision easier though.

At the end of the day, the bill would put more money back in the pockets of parents. The benefit to an average Canadian whose salary is $50,000 would be $4,000. We have heard from witnesses across Canada that choices on EI are based on the impact of the family's income. Therefore, an important bill like this provides that ability for parents to actually choose. There is going to be a choice. When parents know they can make x number of dollars and keep that in their pockets, it will be their choice.

Many times we have discussed why fathers do not take parental leave. One reason is because sometimes the breadwinner is the father. This would give them an option. In some families, the breadwinner may be the mother. This also would provide them additional income. It is that simple.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes in the family unit, and this is all about that. We believe in supporting families and developing reasonable, responsible programs and legislation. We believe that the way to help families is to lower taxes and have good policies. Strong families raise strong individuals, which in turn create strong communities and a stronger country.

Bill C-394, the supporting new parents act, is a policy that would work for families. It would work to help offset some of the costs of parenting. With five children of my own, I know the cost of raising children truly never goes away. I have a 22-year-old son who is still learning how to budget, so I give Garrett a budget. We are working on that. Working with our children and trying to ensure they have the best opportunities does not stop at a particular age.

Canadian families have so much to think about, including what school their child is going to. Do they take sports or piano lessons, or perhaps both? We do not get a tax credit on that, but it is an option. There are friends and curfews. However, the beginning of a child's life is a very special experience. Providing any opportunity for a parent to stay home with a child and help raise that child is a key to building a stronger child-mother, child-father bond, and I think that is really important.

This bill would put families first by providing a tax credit for income earned under EI maternity and EI parental benefits. According to reports, the average family right now, under the current government, is paying $800 a year more in taxes, and we know that is going to continue to grow. Yesterday in the House, we were discussing budget 2018 and the government's historic investments. These historic investments, of course, are the ones the Liberals are going to see on the backs of these children we are currently going to try to diaper, so let us give them a break now.

Let me provide a little insight. When I was talking about diapers, I was talking about the average cost. We can look at other things parents have to pay for. There are baby wipes, $7.99; a box of Q-tips, $3.99; two jars of baby food, three dollars; baby formula, anywhere from $9.98 to $52; baby cream and soaps, an average of five dollars to $10. We can add on the car seat, the crib, blankets, strollers, bottles, and swings. When we add all of those things, parenting does cost money. Being a parent is not cheap, and we know that at one time, one or two parents reduce their income to become parents and raise their children.

Bill C-394, the supporting new parents act, is a policy that would work in the best interest of families, children, and Canadians. The bill would assist new families by removing the federal tax on EI maternity and parental benefits for parents who choose to take time off to raise families, a newborn, or an adopted child. As a party, we believe that the family is essential for the well-being of individuals and society as a whole.

Raising children in Canada can be challenging. Canada's Conservatives recognize the sacrifice of Canadian parents who have to make these choices when having children, including taking leave from work and losing almost half of a regular income. This compassionate policy would help families when they need it most. It would give them more freedom and flexibility to raise their families. For any young family, this important proposed tax relief could make a huge difference in the cost of raising newborn children.

Canadian parents should be able to focus on providing for a new child. They deserve our support. This is especially important when the cost of living continues to rise for parents under this government.

This is the first major economic policy put forward by our leader. We look forward to proposing many other initiatives as we carry forward. As a Conservative team, we are working together to develop social and economic policies that make sense for all Canadians.

I hope I have not scared off anyone who is currently considering having a child when I say how expensive it is. Having a child is one of the greatest joys. It sometimes causes the greatest amount of tears, a lot of late nights, disagreements, and perhaps some time outs. Any time we can give a break to parents so they can raise their families, that is what the government should be doing. Our children are worth it, and supporting today's families is worth it.

I urge this government and members of the opposition party to support this bill.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 16th, 2018]

With regard to the book cover for Budget 2018: (a) how much did the government spend on the cover, including any artwork, graphic design, or photography; and (b) what is the breakdown of all expenses, including, for each expense, the (i) amount, (ii) date, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of good or service, (v) file number?

[Humboldt Broncos Bus Crash, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand in my Team Canada jersey remembering the young men and woman we lost to the horrific tragedy in Humboldt.

As a parent, I know what it's like to send my children on a bus destined for camp, school, or a sports tournament. This story touches the lives of all Canadians. It is about the families and all of the lives that have been impacted and affected. It is about the people who welcomed these young men into their homes as billets. It is about hockey moms and dads. It is about the volunteers who do their best to keep our kids safe on trips away from home.

Through the outpouring of support on Jersey Day and the hashtags #SticksOutForHumboldt and #HumboldtStrong, I know that this has deeply touched individuals across the country.

On behalf of the residents of Elgin—Middlesex—London, we offer our sincere condolences to Humboldt and everyone affected. May God watch over them in the coming days.

[Employment, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives undertook consultations that Liberals refused to, and we led the charge against the Prime Minister's summer jobs values test. While Liberals started attacking us, now they are starting to back down, but that will not be good enough for the kids this year, for charities that feed the hungry this year, and for churches that provide child care this year.

Why are the Liberals waiting until next year to do the right thing?

[Employment, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the approval list for Canada summer jobs came out to the MPs. Compared to last year, 36 fewer organizations in my riding even applied. At least 15 of these organizations told me they did not because of the Liberals' values test.

Instead of funding groups that provide housing and child care, the Liberals have dumped money into for-profit organizations and retailers. Will the Liberals admit this is wrong, vote in favour of our motion, and support Canadians who are trying to help their communities?

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I am in full support of those communities. However, we have to look at some other things.

I want to mention a letter that I received from Great Lakes International Air Show. Maybe he can tell me what this has to do with the community to which he has referred. The organization is not comfortable with signing this attestation. This is an air show. It is what brings tourism to our community. However, as a board, it is not comfortable signing this. The organization's mandate is not about that. It feels the government is stomping on its rights of beliefs. A board of 12 people cannot agree with this.

Whether some people may be pro this or pro that, it does not matter. At the end of the day, what matters is that we will lose people who will help our economy with tourism. We will stop children and students from getting these jobs and the skills development because of this attestation.

If the government had to put out supplementary information, had to backtrack, explaining its view, does the member truly think the attestation is crystal clear?

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the Liberals have come out with this additional information, but people are signing an attestation. For many people, that is like signing an agreement where they say this is not what they believe in. You are asking people to sign something they do not agree with.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that we are not signing the supplementary; we're signing the attestation. If we were signing the supplementary that would be one thing.

You can laugh all you want, but I have organizations in my community that are not going to be providing day care, that are not going to be out there giving out the food we need, and for people to sit there and bicker that this is not happening, I call BS on that. This is happening in our communities, and you guys better open your eyes. We are talking about—