Karen Vecchio

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

I am honoured to rise to speak to the opposition motion presented by the leader of the official opposition.

Tomorrow we will hear from the Minister of Finance the government's plan on the future of Canada's economy and for all Canadians. Our ask of the government is simple: no further tax hikes; measures to address youth unemployment; a plan to see the budget balance by 2019; no plan to sell Canadian airports that involve revenues to finance the Canada Infrastructure Bank; selling to investors influenced by foreign governments; and no hikes to user fees for our taxpayers and travellers.

In budget 2016, we heard a great deal from the government about how it was planning to grow the middle class and help families. However, what did we actually see and what were the end-user effects?

As I have said often in the House, I am the mother of five children. Issues such as the cost of post-secondary education, employment opportunities, affordable housing and taxes are commonly discussed. I want to know that my children have a chance at a good future and a chance to have the same opportunities that I have had.

In a report circulated by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, we have seen statistics comparing 2012 and 2016 data. In 2012, 48% of respondents stated that they felt the next generation's standard of living would be lower. We have actually seen an increase in this number in 2016, and over 58% of Canadians now indicate that they feel the next generation's standard of living will be lower. That is a huge increase, especially when we see these elements that the government is pushing. This same document stated similar findings when asked, “Canadians are increasingly feeling left out of the middle class”.

In 2009, 63.3% felt they were part of the middle class, with 28.9% indicating they were in the working class or poorer. In 2016, just three months following the federal budget and changes to the Canada child benefit and to the tax rate, only 48% felt they were part of the middle class, and a hike to 44.3% felt they were part of the working class or poorer. To me, these are not good results. This document indicates that job insecurity is increasing, saving for retirement is harder, and the growth has not been inclusive.

I would like to focus on the future and on the future of our country. Tomorrow we will potentially hear about a plan focused on the national child program and social housing. We will hear from the Liberal government plans to create new jobs through innovation investments. We may hear how the Liberals are planning on selling capital assets to finance an infrastructure bank and we will hear that Canadians will be burdened with more taxes, whether it is today or in the future.

The 2016 budget introduced the Canada child benefit, while eliminating the universal child care benefit and the Canada child tax benefit. We saw the cancellation of important tax credits to families, including the child fitness tax credit and arts credit. We saw income splitting eliminated for families. While some families may be receiving more money through tax benefits, is the government making a plan to help families in the long term?

I am also proud to be from a riding with many smaller municipalities that rely on volunteers, volunteers who include firefighters. In this budget, I fear that important tax credits, including the tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue workers, will be eliminated. We have to think this. Without these credits, what will be the impact to municipalities like Central Elgin and the municipality of Bayham in my riding that have volunteer firefighters, who not only help with fires but as well the search and rescue missions on the shores of Lake Erie? What will these effects be?

There are also murmurs of the elimination on public transit tax credits, and extremely important in my community, the trades person tool deduction. At the end of the day, people will be paying more taxes.

Through the HUMA committee, we studied a poverty reduction strategy, and the committee is finalizing a report on the findings. Some witnesses clearly indicated that important factors such as skills development, high taxes and unreliable income were issues that were not being dealt with. When looking at some of the strategies that members of the government have spoken of in the past year, we see band-aid solutions. This will is not lead the country to growth and prosperity. We need solid plans, not just more spending.

The government promised to remove the cap on post-secondary education for indigenous people. We know that education will provide important skills development and knowledge that will help those living on a reserve. However, we have not seen or heard anything about about this important issued in the past 18 months. When reviewing the "Pre-budget tour: The State of the Middle Class", PowerPoint presentation put out by the minister, it notes that certain groups remain particularly vulnerable to poverty, specifically indigenous peoples on-reserve. Therefore, will the government do the right thing and remove this cap?

Youth employment is also a huge concern. In the 2015 election, the Liberal Party focused on youth employment, while scolding the Conservative government for its initiatives and belittling the efforts of the Canada summer jobs programs. Trust me, it happened in my own debates. However, in reality, increases to temporary work for summer students is all we have seen from the government. We need to ensure that we are looking at the labour force and matching it to the skills development. Has the government taken any of these steps to fill the gap in the labour force by ensuring we are graduating students from programs where employment opportunities exist?

I currently have two children in post-secondary education. I know the expenses that are incurred for each year of education, especially since we assist with some of those costs. Those costs include housing, tuition and food. My son pays $950 a month in rent in the city of Toronto so he can go to George Brown College. Each year, costs for each of my children are approximately $17,000. What are we doing to ensure that students have employment to assist not only in their current education, but down the road when they try to pay off these loans? Are we going to ensure that when our children graduate, there is actually going to be employment so they can get on their own two feet?

We know the best way out of poverty is a sustainable, reliable, and decent income. The most reliable method of gaining this income is through a job. We support job creation through tax breaks to small businesses, and avoiding needless government debt.

What is the government going to do to assist Canadians to get ahead? If we are looking at the government's record, we see the following: a decrease to disposable income through the Canada pension plan tax hikes; the cancellation of the small business tax rate; potential taxes on health and dental benefits; and potential user fees. The first three of the four points hurt employers. These employers are the people who employ Canadians in the private sector. It is the private sector that keeps our economy healthy.

According to a study published by the Fraser Institute, Canada has put itself at a disadvantage to attract and retain skilled labour, investment, and entrepreneurs, due to personal income tax rates that in response, truly failed to meet the expected increase in revenues to the government. Therefore, what we have seen is less revenue and more spending.

We have heard for months from the new administration in the United States that it will be focusing on lowering taxes and right now, we do not have a plan to compete with this new reality.

I live in a community with U.S. borders, both to the east and west of my riding, and along the 401 corridor. Over 500,000 vehicles per day travel this highway, with billions of dollars of goods transported through this corridor. My area is filled with agricultural producers and manufacturing facilities that rely on trade and export to the United States. If Canada cannot remain competitive, what will happen to these jobs and to the goods that cost more to produce in Canada?

We need to have a plan to be competitive, and I do not see the Liberal government creating a solid plan that can be implemented immediately. The government must come forward with a low-tax plan to remain competitive that in turn will create high-paying jobs.

Just yesterday, I read a quote in the National Post. It said:

Middle-income Canadians may take comfort in the Liberal message, but this messaging hasn’t yet resulted in policies to increase median incomes. At some point, middle-class Canadians may start to wonder when the Liberal message will finally be backed up with cash.

To me, this means income and employment opportunities. I am concerned that the government's plan does not consider any of these factors and we are jeopardizing the future of young Canadians, families, and indigenous people. We need to ensure there is job security, the ability for businesses to invest and grow, and for us to be competitive.

Will the budget do what is necessary for Canadians as a whole? I guess we will find out tomorrow what the government is planning for its future and the future of Canada. I am hoping it does not come with a $30 billion price tag for the next generation.

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I am proud to present a supplementary opinion regarding the status of women study. Important evidence, such as the effects of violence, pornography and the normalization of violence, the models of e-safety in Canada and elsewhere, as well as strong sentencing for perpetrators of sexual assault were things we did not find, which were needed for the recommendations. They were not sought, and we did not have enough information on those, so we have put that in this.

We are also very proud of the private member's bill, Bill C-337, put forward by our leader, which we believe will have a very positive effect on ongoing things with respect to sexual violence.

[Foreign Investment, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions about his own ethical breaches. The innovation minister was forced to admit that he misled Canadians about the people to whom he is selling seniors care facilities.

Canadians do not want to hear any lies or see such a total lack of transparency.

When will the Prime Minister start acting like a leader and clean up his act?

[Foreign Investment, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Innovation claims to have done a review of the sell-off of seniors care facilities in B.C., but is not capable of telling Canadians who owns Anbang Insurance. Not even Wall Street firms will do business with Anbang because of the murky ownership structure, dominated by the who's who of the Chinese Communist Party.

In the minister's pandering to Beijing, Canadians deserve to know who is pulling the strings and deciding the fate of our seniors. The question is simple. Who owns Anbang Insurance?

[Taxation, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the raft of talking points his government has been giving for the last year and a half.

We have been asking about families, and that is something the member, in his response, did not once talk about. He talked about the regular things we are hearing from the Liberal government but did not take into consideration those people who are making $45,000 or less a year. Those are people who cannot afford a hybrid car and therefore are not getting a $10,000 or $15,000 rebate. Instead, they are having to drive cars that may still be emitting, because that is what they can afford, because the government has not focused on jobs.

These are some of the concerns. We can sit here and talk about the price of carbon and having people emit less, but what is happening to those families that have to use an older car because they cannot afford a new one or find a new job or a job that may pay more money, or anything like that? How are we going to do on that?

The government continues to talk about what it is doing for the middle class. What it has done here is target the lower class. They are going to be paying more and more money. They cannot afford those rebates the provincial governments are giving people for automobiles.

I want to know from the member specifically, what is he doing for low-income families who cannot afford the carbon tax?

[Taxation, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to continue with a follow up on a question I had the other day regarding a comment made by the mayor of Medicine Hat. During our HUMA committee, he was asked what he would do to help those in need. This had to do with money being taken out of the pockets of taxpayers, because of a government tax, to the point where they could not afford things. He was very open and said he would not charge it at all.

Many different provinces will be putting forward different solutions when it comes to the climate change development. In Ontario, Premier Kathleen Wynne is not only charging the carbon tax but also a tax on tax because part of that delivery charge also includes the HST. Therefore, when we talk about money grabs, that is exactly what Canadians see right now.

We talk a lot about climate change and what it means. Unfortunately, what we see is a mandate put in by the Prime Minister where, at the end of the day, we do not know where the money is going. It is no different than in the province of Ontario when it is puts something forward. It gets health care dollars and ends up building roads. Therefore, will we see concerns like this?

When people cannot afford to put food on their tables or pay for heat and hydro for their home, how can we honestly add another 4% to 15% on their taxes, or ask them to spend more when they can barely spend enough?

Of the 10 municipalities I have, some are doing very well and some are falling a bit behind. I know people in the communities that are falling behind will have to pay more in fuel to go to their jobs. Therefore, not only are they already behind the eight ball, they will now be paying more tax because of the carbon tax. I have heard the Prime Minister talk about how he will try to separate province to province and what they will do. However, as I indicated earlier, when we see the premier of Ontario have a tax on tax, this is just not right, especially for the people who cannot afford it.

My good friend from Carleton also stated this. When we look at an annual salary of $45,000, we are hurting those people who are below the middle-class line. There is actually no ceiling when it comes to the carbon tax. We are not targeting it, we are just saying that it is carte blanche, “take all the money you want.” We see this a lot, especially from the Ontario government. I suspect we will see it from other governments as well. Some may be putting in plans where they will take the money and put it into innovation and technology, so they can come out with great state-of-the-art programs that will reduce fuel emissions. However, we are sitting here talking about a carbon tax.

I know the parliamentary secretary will talk about us not doing so well. In the last 10 years, prior to the Liberal Party forming government, we actually reduced the carbon footprint. Therefore, part of my concern is that we are talking about spending money and about having polluters spend more money, but we are not taking into consideration the taxpaying people who cannot afford to put loaves of bread on their tables.

Those are some of my grave concerns. Therefore, I really want to hear he parliamentary secretary for the environment tell us how we will deal with this when there is tax on tax, when people cannot afford to put fuel in their vehicles to go their job because they are paying more and more.

In Ontario, we saw a jump immediately following the introduction of the carbon tax, and we will see more of that, just like we did on our hydro bills with the delivery charge. Therefore, I would like to have some comments on that, and on how Canadians will be able to afford this.

[College Hockey America, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, she shoots, she scores. I am so proud to recognize my niece Brittany “the Chipmunk” Howard today. This incredible U.S. college hockey player is putting St. Thomas on the map once again.

Brittany, a.k.a. Howie, is a junior redshirt with Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh. Last week she was named the College Hockey America player of the year. She led the conference with 48 points on 18 goals and 30 assists, also capturing the scoring trophy. She led the CHA in scoring in conference play, scoring seven goals while assisting on 18. This was her third full season eclipsing the 40-point mark, setting a new personal best of 48 points. “Spider Monkey”, as she is known, had four multi-goal games, including one hat trick, and also put up 15 multi-point games, which was tied for the most in the CHA.

To top that off, Robert Morris captured its first College Hockey America championship and earned a spot in the NCAA tournament by defeating Syracuse 2-0 on Saturday in the conference title game. It is the team's first NCAA tournament berth.

On behalf of everyone in my family, and everyone in Elgin—Middlesex—London, I would like to congratulate Bulldog.

[Seniors, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I mean the member for Nickelback, who is really from Nickel Belt, but loves Nickelback.

The fact is, we should not be sitting here and putting in a motion that says, yea, look how great we are. I think that is the one thing out of this entire motion that I find extremely frivolous. I respect the member a great deal, but I think that is a way of creating partisan politics right there. Maybe he could have done a little bit better. Maybe he is willing to amend that on my behalf because he knows I am not really good with that one.

Let us go back to old age security. We will have an aging population. One out of four of our seniors will be over the age of 65 by 2030. This will cost our government between $10.4 billion and $11.2 billion. Those were just rough estimates that were done when the previous government looked at those calculations.

[Seniors, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to change the way I was going to give my speech, because there were certain things that I was going to talk about last.

The first thing I want to respond to is the previous member's comments. Because it is on the record that the Conservative Party put forward a motion, members had better know what we are talking about when we say things such as that the Conservatives put through a counter motion. What actually happened, and I know the chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is aware of it as well, is that on March 22, 2016, there was a motion. If we are going to say that we are playing politics, let us make sure we have our facts straight.

On March 22, 2016, the member for Langley—Aldergrove brought forward a motion in the HUMA committee. Being honest about this, because it is important that we have these discussions, I looked at the motion and saw a great deal of provincial jurisdiction. As a federal member of Parliament, it is very difficult for me to look at a motion and see that a study is going to be 80% provincial. Therefore, I played around with that motion in committee on February 14 and reintroduced it.

Let us be fair and put on the record that Conservatives were not playing politics with this and that our motion was introduced nine months previous to this motion. I want to clarify that. If we are going to talk about playing politics, let us be real. This was not a political move because seniors are very important to the Conservative Party. My riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London at one time had one of the largest populations of seniors in Ontario. I recognize how important they are and that it is a growing demographic.

I am going to talk about the importance of seniors. I believe that I bring a lot of experience to the House in dealing with everyday seniors, whether it is filling out old age security applications, dealing with the GIS, or doing voluntary tax returns for 10 years. There are a lot of things we can do as federal legislators to help seniors, important things like income splitting. That has had a great and positive impact for seniors.

Another great example of what the Conservative government improved on was the age for OAS. From my experience in doing tax returns, usually $12,000 is the basic income, and from there it is added on. That age amount allowed seniors, many times, to go from about $12,000 to almost $18,000. The first $18,000 was not taxed. I am going to remind people that the guaranteed income supplement is not a taxable amount, so that is not part of the old age security and CPP that is taxed.

We need to look at what federal legislatures can do. When it comes to seniors, we can make sure there are proper tax credits. I appreciate the tax credits that seniors currently have and can only ask that we continue to do more of that, that we continue to look at what more we can do for seniors in that respect. Another thing is making sure that there are the right vehicles to allow seniors to save.

We all know that in the 2015 election, there was so much talk about old age security. There were some misnomers and then there were some truths. One of the truths is that my oldest sister Linda was born in 1962. She will be happy that I said that. The fact is that her age group was going to be the first to be affected by the increase in retirement age from 65 to 67. We are not talking about the seniors of today; we are talking about the seniors of tomorrow. I felt that we were allowing seniors to prepare for their future. We put in vehicles like the tax-free savings account that would allow people to prepare.

My sister is going to be 54 on May 12 and will be retiring in 11 years. Age 65 is when she was going to receive her old age security. It was changed in 2012 or so, to age 67, and the change was going to give her almost 15 years to prepare for her retirement. The Liberals changed that back to age 65.

The finance council has been established, and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development will not be taking the advice of this council to increase the age from 65 to 67, although we see that 23 out of the 32 OECD countries are doing so. They are doing so because they recognize that there is an aging demographic and people are living longer.

When old age security was brought forward it was not in a time when people were living 10 and 12 years longer, as they are doing now.

We also have to recognize that we have many other great benefits, our health care, and every day we turn a page we find new scientific adventures and there is better health care. As my friend sitting beside me today said, there are great initiatives like Bill C-277, our framework for palliative care policies. We are putting forward strategies that can work, and we need to do those things.

I have to say that I would have preferred that the member for Nickelback had not put in section B—

[Taxation, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has dictated that the provinces must collect his carbon tax. In true Liberal fashion, Premier Wynne has secretly planned to apply HST to their new cap-and-trade plan and will hide the cap-and-trade tax in the delivery charge. Ontarians are not only paying more for heat and hydro but now will be paying tax on tax.

When will the Prime Minister stand up for his Ontarians and tell his Ontario Liberal friends to start helping the middle class instead of taxing them to death?