Karen Vecchio

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen many times during question period that we are finding those loopholes every day. We have been asking about Morneau Shepell. The member for Carleton has done an excellent job.

There will continue to be loopholes that will not affect the people we are talking about on Bay Street, so I would like to see what the member has to offer. I personally have not looked at it. However, the bottom line here is that we are not seeing tax fairness. We need the consultation period extended, and perhaps those consultations could be part of that as well.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as I know the member worked for the chamber of commerce, I find it surprising that he is not listening to the people who are members of it. We have seen 99% of Canadians who are members of the chamber vote against this proposal. It is interesting that he is not one of them.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I love hearing the word “fair” from the Liberals.

I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and I am honoured to speak today on behalf of my constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London regarding the proposed tax changes put forward and the request to extend the consultations on these proposed changes.

I would like to thank the Liberal government for creating chaos in my community. It was created by the Liberal government and not by anyone else but the Liberal government.

Members of the community, including renovators and home builders, farmers, physicians, family-run businesses, restaurants, and accountants made sure they took time away to come to speak to me about these changes and how they will be negatively impacted.

Today I want to start with some of the highlights from my constituents. I have only brought in about eight of the letters from the hundreds and hundreds of letters have come in. I have had lots of meetings. We have been doing these consultations, and I continue to have consultations.

I would like to begin with a letter from Mike from London, who wrote:

Three years ago I established a new business in London investing significant resources in addition to working the 60+ hour weeks required to make it successful. In March we doubled our warehouse space and employee count double to 4, with us considering adding a 5th person this fall. I question why I am doing this based on the new tax path the federal Government is planning to implement. The returns available to small businesses are just not balanced with the risks faced every day.

Jim, from St. Thomas, is also a well-respected accountant who immediately started reviewing these changes. It wasn't us, but someone who has worked in this field for 35 years who then wrote to me the following:

We continue to feel that the income sprinkling issue in particular is way out of line and potentially just plain wrong in every sense of the word if you can't share your family business income and future gains with a child rearing/non participating or only partially participating spouse. For example is the doctors spouse who runs the office and may or may not be a nurse eligible for equal compensation to the doctor in the future? I'd like to be there when the CRA field auditor says they're not just to see what happens. Or the farmers spouse?

We are also hearing that the new “reasonableness rules” in the Act will override the old administrative policy of the CRA that “any” owner-manager salary/bonus is reasonable. So if dividends paid have to represent a reasonable return, then we are unclear of how to distribute income from a company whether it be by way of a wage or a dividend.

It is funny that we are talking about how the Conservatives have spun on this, but I did not write anything to these people. They are actually writing us, and we have tax specialists writing to us. I have not asked for their insight. As we continue with this, I want to be sure that members of the government know we are listening to the people.

I would like to share three paragraphs.

Hetty is another small business owner. She works in the community. She is widowed and happily just remarried, and we are very proud of her. She works seven days a week at her landscaping business. She wrote me a very lengthy letter, but I just want to read a little excerpt:

Please find attached a couple of letters from me regarding Taxation of Private Corporations. From what I have been hearing, it is really starting to worry me. I've worked my whole life as an entrepreneur and if I can't use capital gains exemptions or realize a profit from the sale of my business then my retirement is looking very dim. I do not have CPP or a pension to fall back on. Small business owners need support in order to realize a decent retirement. I hope that the government is able to stop what they are doing and have some conversations with the business community so they don't unfairly target private small business.

As I continue with this, the letters and emails have been pouring in from Canadian families, but I specifically looked at only the people from Elgin—Middlesex—London, which includes the city of London, the city of St. Thomas, and eight other municipalities, mostly farming communities.

I have Jason and Shelby from Thorndale, who wrote to me:

According to the Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness, these proposals will restrict small-business owners, like family farm owners, from sharing income with family members. Changes to capital gains rules will make it more difficult for owners to transfer their farms within the family to the next generation.

This in particular is a concern for multi-generational farm businesses that have incorporated for the purposes of farm succession....

That is something we on this side have heard many times from our advocates. We are here to listen to the farmers. We want to know what is going on.

I can continue, and that is exactly what I am going to do. Members are going to have to listen to me for five more minutes. Farmers in my area are very vocal. If members ever want to hear vocal, come to Elgin—Middlesex—London. They will let the members know what is really happening.

Peter and Sarah from West Elgin shared with me a very familiar story. I too was raised on a farm and I understand the challenges and risks. I was a farmer's daughter. We raised 18,000 turkeys and 2,000 pigs. My dad worked seven days a week, 365 days a year, and that is what he did until he sold his farm in 1996.

However, this is what they have written. He gave me an entire page before it, but it states:

Fast forward 30 years and we have survived almost complete bankruptcy, droughts, crop loss, pig deaths and many other trials and tribulations to create successful cash crop and livestock operations. However, all of this was at a cost. We received no funding to pay for our university educations, no help to open our new businesses. We risked it all. On paper we might look like a successful business but there is no retirement for our parents other than the family farm. As an employer I have no access to EI, I have to pay for my own benefit plan and I have no access to OSAP for my children to attend University. I have no help other than my own blood, sweat and tears poured in 365 days a year and multiple hours a day because that what it takes to raise livestock. I risked marrying a city girl only to have her discover that pigs get shipped out on Christmas Day, that chores need to be done on the weekends and going away for more than 4 or 5 days at a time is hardly possible.

To continue with this, now I have Linda's letter. Linda is a great lady from the city of London. She wrote:

I thought it might be helpful to provide a more personal response to the proposed tax amendments. The amendments are premised on the idea that small business owners are wealthy. To the contrary, many business owners are middle class – the same group of people that this government seems to want to prioritize.

I think that speaks for itself. It is the middle class saying, “Hey, you're not helping us, government.”

I would like to move on to Dan. Dan is a very well-respected financial planner within our own community. He also does insurance. He has studied this. He has not been told about it by me or any other member of the Conservative Party. We are talking about an academic studying this information and breaking it down, so before members say that this is a Conservative spin, this is what Dan, a well-respected person in my community, has written. These are the first top six issues he has:

Federal proposals represent significant tax reform for family businesses in Canada.

Family business owners are the middle class. Family-owned enterprise is the engine of our economy.

I hope everyone realizes that.

It is misleading to equate business owners with salaried employees. I am not sure how many members have been small business owners in this room. However, I have been. I have worked many times for zero dollars. I can tell members that at the end of the day I made sure the employees went home with a paycheque, while I sat there trying to figure out what to do. That is just the life of a small business owner.

Imposing new rule introduces more complexity and uncertainty.

We have heard that time and time again.

Integrating generational businesses makes succession even more difficult.

Those are some of Dan's tactics and issues.

I want to finish with Jonathan. When I looked at Jonathan's letter, I thought, “This guy gets it. This guy really gets it and does care.” He wrote:

I am deeply concerned with the tax proposals released by the Department of Finance on July 18th. These proposed changes, as currently worded, will be extremely damaging for my farm and the farm businesses across Ontario and Canada. These proposed changes, will add uncertainty and complexity to farmers and small business owners across the country. I am particularly concerned with the impact these changes would have on succession planning. It is unacceptable that the government of Canada would make it easier and more beneficial from a tax perspective for a farmer to sell their farm business to a stranger, rather than their own child or grandchild. This type of policy threatens the tradition of the Canadian family farm.

The conduct of this consultation is completely unacceptable. Providing a 75-day consultation period on such complex, and ill-conceived legislation makes a mockery of the democratic process and good governance.

As currently worded, these proposed changes cannot be allowed to move forward. If tax reform is a priority, it must be done in a meaningful consultation with Canadian farm businesses and other small businesses.

I ask that you do not support this process or these proposed tax changes.

As a young farmer, and someone that is now completely self-employed, these changes will de-incentivise entrepreneurial ventures and business owner ship in general.

He carries on about how in Ontario we do not have just the Liberal government to deal with but also the Ontario Liberal government to deal with, so these farmers will now be paying minimum wage increases and paying more for hydro. I really do not know how they are doing it.

All we are asking for today is more time for consultations. The government can say the process is over, but if it is over, why do I continue to get loads of calls from many people still wanting to meet with us? It is because people just found out on July 18 that the government is proposing this change. In the dead of summer, people are busy doing things. Maybe they were doing Canada 150 celebrations, as I was, but we have not given Canadians the proper opportunities to speak.

What the government has done here is totally demobilize the faith of good Canadians. I urge members to vote yes to allow the consultations to proceed for the next couple of months so that all Canadians can have their voices heard.

[Canada Labour Code, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-345, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code for pregnant and nursing employees. As indicated in the speech by my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, my party supports referral of this piece of legislation to committee for further review and witness testimony. I believe it is an important amendment to the Canada Labour Code and should be given the appropriate amount of time at committee stage for review.

Although the Canada Labour Code affects only 10% of the population, some of the jobs falling into this category would be of concern to pregnant and nursing mothers, including jobs in uranium mining, air transportation and airlines, and interprovincial pipelines. Each of these jobs could threaten the health of both the mother and her child.

As we move forward in Canada with the economic growth of women, we must take important things into consideration. Currently, women make up a small majority of university graduates. Women are graduating from science and technology, engineering and math, but are not remaining in those fields at the same rates. I believe, as a member of the status of women committee, that women make the choice to have children that takes them out of the workforce temporarily, and sometimes full-time. We must provide family friendly options that work both for families and Canada's economy. Policies that would work and support women during their pregnancy and while nursing need to be discussed and studied as we continue to support women nationally.

We have reviewed the policies currently in place in Quebec. These policies create a gap between Quebec employees and their co-workers in the same fields, and sometimes when they are working side by side. Providing an opportunity for the federal minister to work with her provincial counterparts and to review Labour Code issues with a gender-based lens would provide a positive and equal playing field, but we need to hear from the experts on this issue, who will study the economic benefits and negative impacts on our economy and families.

We must consider what jobs females currently do Canada. According to a 2016 Statistics Canada report on employment by industry and sex, women make up 19.5% of the employees in the forestry, fishing, mining, quarry, oil and gas sectors. According to a study completed by Mining Industry Human Resources Council on participation in the mining industry in 2011, in a variety of capacities, including operating heavy-duty equipment, welding, and truck driving, women's participation was below 15%. Therefore, we have see growth between 2011 and 2016.

It is important that we continue to support the growth of female participation by reviewing the current federal policies in time. Many women plan their careers and employment around childbirth. Families are important to the growth of Canada, and supporting families is a practical approach to this issue. Providing flexible parental leave and employment insurance benefits for parents with ill children are positive measures that the Conservative Party supports and introduced in previous legislation and in its 2015 platform.

We must always consider the risk of a job to the health of the mother and her child. According to WorkplaceNL:

Laurentian University, in consultation with Workplace Safety North...have developed a document, “Guide to Healthy Pregnancies in the Mining Workplace”.... This is a valuable resource that provides information on workplace hazards in the mining industry including: physical agents (noise, vibration, heat, radiation); chemical agents (gases, dusts, mists, vapours, metals) and other factors (ergonomics, scheduling and workplace stress).

I believe this is an opportunity to review the occupational health of pregnant and nursing mothers, and organizations like this could study and identify these risks.

To return to the bill and its financial aspects and the amendments suggested by the sponsoring member, what would be the economic impacts of these for Canadians? What is the loss of income to a family when a pregnant or nursing mother must take time off without pay due to a pregnancy? What would this bill do, what would the results be, and what would happen if it went forward?

This bill only allows for the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with the provinces. It does not create these agreements.

Members of the Conservative Party support maternal and child health in Canada and abroad. A government MP indicated previously that legislation like this would further complicate an already complicated area, but realistically, the key priority of this legislation is the safety of pregnant women and their unborn or nursing children, and the financial impact if they cannot be accommodated at their places of work.

The Liberal government, in its 2017 budget, extended to 12 week the benefits available to women who are unable to work due to their pregnancies. On a side note, I still prefer the 15 weeks presented in a private member's bill by the member for Kingston and the Islands. Moving the date prior to the birth of the child from eight to 12 weeks is a positive thing to do, but sometimes the threats to pregnancy are longer than just 12 weeks.

Sometimes expectant mothers can have a pregnancy involving hypertension or multiple births. Many employers will do their best to accommodate their employees, but unfortunately this is not always the case, so we need to consider alternatives. Having appropriate studies that will support economic security for women in Canada must be considered, and moving this piece of legislation to committee should be supported.

Many issues need to be considered, including current agreements with employees, inequities, and estimated costs. We must find an appropriate balance that supports families while supporting our businesses, which are already feeling the impact of the Liberal government's measures, including the most recent proposed tax changes and the cancellation of the Liberals' 2015 campaign plan to allow small business tax rates to be reduced to 9%. We always have to take these things into consideration, because it is not just about the employees; it is also about the employers.

Unfortunately, we have seen small businesses being targeted by the government since the 2015 election. Although we see jobs have been created, we also see a huge threat to our economy as we move forward with these proposed tax changes. We have to always consider what else the government can throw at them, whether it is federally or provincially, and what the government is going to do to make life for small business even harder.

As we are considering these amendments, we must see who will be impacted and who will benefit from the legislation. This has to be the question. Does this piece of legislation make life better for Canadian families, mothers, and their children? Have we properly supported the economic security of women in Canada, while supporting the growth of Canadian families?

I thank the member for bringing this bill forward so that we can review these potential changes. Bill C-345 provides a vehicle for parliamentarians to study these changes and to speak to experts in different fields. We need to support families and support healthy pregnancies and children, but we also need to create a healthy economy.

[Taxation, September 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last week I stopped at the local gas station to fill up. Chad is one of the local owners and provides with me with updates on the community. However, last week was a bit different. He shared with me his thoughts on the proposed Liberal tax changes that would impact his family.

Chad is the youngest son of Sam and Camilla. Sam and Camilla have owned the local store and station for over 30 years. The store and station is their retirement. Sam is now ill. Sam and Camilla have assisted their children in post-secondary education through their hard work. Instead of letting them live their retirement in dignity after working 60 to 70 hours a week for decades, the government is throwing a wrench in their retirement. All of the financial risks they carried personally during their years of supporting their family through highs and lows no longer matter.

I urge the government to start thinking about the small business owners in Elgin—Middlesex—London. They are not the 1%; they are farmers, renovators, home builders, restaurateurs, and retailers. I ask the Liberals to start listening, please.

[Canadian Bill of Rights, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Spadina—Fort York for that passionate campaign speech. I would also like to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for the actual passion she has on this. That being said, I personally cannot support this bill, which would put the right to housing under the framework of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, I am concerned that this bill would not actually combat the real barriers, and those are actually the barriers the member for Spadina—Fort York focused on. The bill fails to deliver the necessary measures needed to help Canadians who are hurting the most.

I would like to first talk about the style of the bill and how it does not properly take the current state of the Canadian Bill of Rights into account. To be honest, that is one of the key issues we looked at as a caucus when we were discussing this. What is the Bill of Rights? What was put forward by the Right Hon. Prime Minister John Diefenbaker at the time he wrote this in 1960? What would be the significance of this amendment? While I appreciate the difficultly the sponsor of this bill must have faced in forging new ground by seeking its amendment, I have a few issues with the language of Bill C-325.

Primarily, the framework set out in the Canadian Bill of Rights is a prohibitive one. The Bill of Rights put forward by Diefenbaker in 1960 is not about including things like housing. The former prime minister understood that the framework and the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to expand individual freedom and to protect people from the long reach of the government. This would become a very short reach of the government if we were to start enshrining it in the Bill of Rights.

The point of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that Canada would continually be a society of free men and free institutions. All the rights currently present in the bill are to protect the rights of the individual by ensuring that the government cannot interfere with the practice of those rights. They include freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and association, among others. That is why it is a key point that Bill C-325 does not actually fit into the Bill of Rights adopted in 1960.

The reason is that the right to housing, as outlined in Bill C-325, does not work within this framework and would try to create a potentially massive program and government intervention as a right. This activist role of the government is opposite to the framework of the Bill of Rights and would do damage to the rich history of the legislation, which has truly stood the test of time. We have had this legislation for more than 50 years, and it continues to be vibrant and to have a part in today's debate.

I disagree with Bill C-325 on more than just stylistic grounds. The content of this bill naively assumes that Canadians' housing needs can be resolved with a single stroke. That is something we have heard from the member as well as from the government. It seems to put forward the idea that housing is a right and that if the federal government steps in, the housing concerns of Canadians would magically disappear. Unfortunately, the reality is much more complex than that.

First, the bill completely ignores that jurisdiction for housing is shared with the provinces and territories. Almost all federal funding that goes toward housing and homelessness initiatives is funnelled through the provinces and delivered through the municipalities and individual housing co-operatives, which provide housing to those in need. As it stands, the plan put forward by our NDP colleague would simply give an unreasonable mandate to the federal government in an area that is a jurisdiction shared with our fellow governments. It is also worth noting that as a simple act of Parliament, the Bill of Rights is only able to create rights that fall within federal jurisdiction. We are talking about shared jurisdiction with the provinces, territories, and municipalities. This Bill of Rights put forward by Prime Minister Diefenbaker is specific to federal legislation, and it rules over all levels of government.

The question then becomes this. What is the point of this bill? Is it a simple token sentiment? Is it an attempt to seize power unilaterally from the provinces? I believe, after listening to the member who put this forward, that it is about passion. I do not want to say that the work she is doing is not admired, but at the same time, we have to ask what the role of the federal government is and how we can go forward with this. We need to look at the logistics.

All the issues I have raised so far need to be taken into account. However, the issue at the core of this bill is that it would not make housing more affordable for average, hard-working Canadians. This is a key issue. Allow me to be clear on this. As a Conservative member representing the Conservative Party today, I can say that we firmly agree that Canadians deserve a reasonable opportunity to own their own homes and to have access to safe and affordable housing. Unfortunately, we currently have a government that seems bent on making home ownership increasingly difficult for aspiring Canadians. Housing is one area where the truly damaging policies of the current government can clearly be seen.

By raising taxes, the Liberals have cut the ability of Canadians to save up for a down payment or a mortgage. By hiking CPP payroll taxes on hard-working middle-class earners, the people the Liberals pretend to help are being forced to give to the government their hard-earned money. We see this more and more as we continue to talk about some of the proposed tax legislation being put forward.

It is no surprise that the Liberals feel that they know how to spend Canadians' money better than Canadians, but the damaging effects of the government's entitlement mindset are clear when we see how regular people are crippled in their ability to make large financial decisions, such as moving toward permanent home ownership. The debt the government is racking up is only looking to get worse, and Joe and Jane taxpayer are feeling the pain.

When budget 2017 was unveiled, it was apparent that the Liberals had no plan to make life more affordable for regular Canadians. Although the Liberals often boast about their purported investments in housing, it has largely turned out to be a game of smoke and mirrors. One of the foremost examples of the government's failure to deliver is the recent parliamentary budget officer's report that clearly demonstrated that despite big talk and flowery language, the government's money has not made much of an impact on Canadian families. Communities are not getting the funding the government promised. The PBO's report even says that it does not expect that the federal government will spend all the money on housing and infrastructure investment that has been promised.

More directly related to housing, the government has further burdened young Canadians who are working hard and aspiring to home ownership by tightening the rules for obtaining a mortgage. What is more troubling about this move by the government is that it was done without engaging any stakeholders, including young Canadians. It will push home ownership more out of reach for Canadians and will not help affordability at all.

To summarize, the government has tightened rules, requiring Canadians to pay more for a mortgage while simultaneously pickpocketing Canadian families through tax hikes, debt, deficits, and credit eliminations, not to mention slamming a carbon tax on living necessities for every middle-class family in this country. The government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It seems to be striving to set Canadians up to fail in the housing market.

In light of this, I can understand my colleague's desire to step in and more clearly define the government's role in housing through Bill C-325. However, adding it to the Bill of Rights, where it does not belong and will not be effective, is not the way to fix such a broad issue. Instead, the federal government needs to be taking practical approaches that will empower Canadians to own their own homes.

The Conservatives have a strong track record of making progress in this area. By 2014, the Conservative Party had brought the low-income cut-off poverty rate to a historic low of 8.8%, making huge strides in reducing poverty through fair-minded policies. Conservatives also expanded saving mechanisms such as the tax-free savings account, reduced taxes, and invested in responsible policies to bring home ownership within the realm of possibility for every Canadian.

The Conservatives invested over $19 billion through CMHC to improve the state of housing in Canada and began initiatives, such as the investment in affordable housing and the housing first initiatives, to empower Canadians and fight homelessness at a fundamental level. Last week, when I was taking part in a housing symposium in Ottawa—Vanier, one of the things I heard about time and time again was specifically housing first and what an excellent approach it is. Does it need additional things put into it? Absolutely, but it was a great first step in what the former Conservative government did in 2008. We need to continue to build on that.

The symbolism of the member's bill is understandable but somewhat misguided. If the federal government is serious about making home ownership for regular Canadians a reality, it needs to seriously re-evaluate its policies. Canadians deserve more action, rather than more talking, to make home ownership a reality.

I know that a government member is likely to stand up in this House and brag about how much the Liberals are throwing at housing in budget 2017, but high taxes, reduced saving capabilities, strict rules on the market, and expensive household items will not help Canadians and will continue to lock them out of this market. Broad-based relief when people are trying to own a home or are seeking affordable rental housing is essential.

In conclusion, I would like to compliment the sponsor of this bill for her attempt to make amendments to a well-crafted bill that has never seen such additions. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today. As we move ahead, I look forward to the debate.

[Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act, September 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my husband has been in car sales for over five and a half years. As the member indicated in his speech, one of the key issues they have in the smaller dealerships is the lack of parts. In the St. Thomas area, they are one of the highest selling car sales agencies in London. They are a small dealership, with six employees. The problem is that they have four parts available for 100 cars, and so a lot of times there has been a real delay in getting those parts, and sometimes for up to one year.

It is important that small rural dealerships be at the table at committee so we can recognize some of the issues of rural and remote dealerships.

[House of Commons Pages, June 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of 40 incredible young individuals, the House of Commons pages. They have been hard at work all year making our time in this place run smoothly. They have supported all members in the House in carrying out the important tasks that allow us as members of Parliament to represent our constituents as best as possible. The pages' hard work, devotion, and enthusiasm during busy question periods or late night debates is especially impressive, considering that the pages have had to balance a full academic schedule along with their duties here.

Being a page is an extraordinary and special experience. To be able to spend a year in this distinguished institution at this time in their young lives is indeed a rare and special opportunity. As their time as pages comes to an end, I know they will have fond memories and new friends for life.

On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank the pages for their dedication, loyalty, and hard work, and I wish them all the best in their future endeavours.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2017]

Answer the question.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, an individual can go onto the national registry, but as everybody in this House knows, it is not public. As I have said, I have worked in a constituency office for a number of years and have had a lot of interaction with people who had been the victims of sexual offences. One was a seven-year-old girl and another was a 12-year-old girl. I recognize what the parents went through.

Following that, when the person was arrested in my own home town, the police were always being asked about it, but unfortunately that information is not public.

The member seems to be worried more about the reintegration of an offender than about public safety or our children. That is of great concern. I would like to know the science behind that, because this is a very science-based government. I am saying that while biting my tongue.

He is talking about science. I would like him to tell me, in terms of pedophiles, people who have sexually assaulted our children, what their chances are of re-victimizing.