Karen Vecchio

[Instruction to the Standing Committee on Health, December 8th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will be honest that when this topic came up, I never thought it would be something I would discuss here in the House of Commons. I know that when my parents watch this debate, whom I discussed this with a last night, they too will be surprised by some of the information I am going to be sharing.

I would really like to thank the member for Peace River—Westlock for introducing such a timely motion. Currently, in the status of women committee, we are studying violence against young women and girls. Through that study, I have learned more than I ever expected to learn. I think it is really important for all Canadians to know about this important topic relating to pornography and the necessity of the health committee's studying the effects of pornography.

I will start with a little story. I am just going to go off the cuff on this. There is a member I sit with on the status of women committee who will laugh at the fact that I am telling this story. It is a little embarrassing. I will start with a commercial called The Boys. I will ask everyone in the House to go home and watch this advertisement for some underwear made by an Australia company. The underwear's name is Bonds.

I first viewed this commercial on my flight back from some work I did on the status of women file. It was one of the award-winning commercials for underwear. On Air Canada, during this nice flight, I was watching this commercial. It has two testicles, and they are talking about how comfortable, and sometimes uncomfortable, underwear is.

I found the humour absolutely hilarious, because it is the type of humour that anyone who ever watched Seinfeld would appreciate. It was a little off the cuff, a little, “Oh my goodness, I cannot believe they said that”, but at the same time extremely witty.

The first thing I did when I got home was to say to my husband, “You have to watch this commercial. It is absolutely hilarious.” The commercial has two segments, part one and part two. I believe there may be a part three, as well. I allowed my son, who is 13 years old, to watch it, because I recognize what is appropriate and inappropriate. I also think parenting is very important.

After watching part one and part two of these commercials, the next thing that came up was pornography, as we were on an automatic loop. It was of two young girls and a young man. I will let members know that we could not run faster to that channel changer so we would not show our 13-year-old son what was playing next.

It was one of those embarrassing moments when we sit and wonder how we got to this from an underwear commercial that is playing on television in Australia 24 hours a day. How could pornography follow this?

At the status of women committee, we are also studying the algorithms involved. I see the parliamentary secretary here, and she, too, would understand the things that we are studying and how algorithms are a huge part of our study of the issue of violence against women and girls. We looked at algorithms this week and how when people put certain things in a search engine, there are crumbs that will show what people have watched in the past and then send that person to something on the web.

Of course, in my home, the first thing I said was, “Who is watching pornography? How did we possibly get this coming up after watching part one and part two of the commercial?” I had to ask every single person, and everyone said they did not watch it.

The first thing I did was to go to my iPhone and do the exact same search. I can promise members that not once has the word “pornography” been put in the search engine in my iPhone. I kind of look at it as a safe place, because there should not be any crumbs leading to this. The third thing that came up after viewing part one and part two of this commercial was pornography. Somehow it is being linked.

The reason I am talking about this is that I understand, from all the studies that we have done, that a huge majority of young boys have already watched or come across pornography by the age of 11.

In this regard, I would really like to thank the member who has moved this motion for the work he has done with the Over 18 documentary, which really focuses on the pornography industry and its effects.

While we were watching this documentary in the House of Commons last month, there was a young boy from Ontario, I believe, in the documentary who talked about the fact that every single day he was watching pornography. He was not just watching one or two segments; he was watching it sometimes up to five times a day.

His parents found out about this, and the first thing they did was have a discussion with him about pornography, because they had noticed a huge change in their son's behaviour. They are stating that they watched a huge deterioration in their son's behaviour toward his sisters, the fact that he had become much more violent with them, and it became much more of a violent situation. It was quite unbelievable for these parents that they were having to discuss healthy relationships and sex with their young son. I believe he was 11 or 12 years old at the time.

In this documentary, Over 18, they also talked about the desensitization of pornography and the effects that it has on healthy relationships. The week before last I was at a breakfast with a professor who has done tons and tons of work around this country and around the world on pornography and the effects of pornography. Some of the things she talked about included a discussion she had with a 12-year-old who asked if strangling while having sex was right, because he understood that was normal. Things like violent relationship stuff at the age of 12 is now being introduced to our young children.

I am a mother of five. I have two young girls and three young boys. I am very concerned with what we are seeing. When we talk about pornography, what is happening to healthy relationships?

I think this study is very timely, especially when we see the effects of pornography on our young children, our families, and our relationships, especially since it has not been studied for over 30 years, and we have now been introduced to the Internet. Thirty years ago, pornography would have been something as simple as a Playboy. My husband shared stories of coming across Playboy magazines many years ago when he was at a friend's house or something like that. Those are the things 14- or 15-year-old boys would get their hands on.

Now the pornography is much greater and much further into the craziness, where we are seeing violent behaviour toward young girls and women and even young boys as well, and we have to recognize the effects it is having on relationships.

During the study of violence against women, we had a witness by the name of Jane Bailey. She said there is absolutely a correlation between pornography and violence against women. If we are to continue wanting to make sure that we have a world of equality, a country where there is no violence, a country where women and children are treated properly, we need to look at pornography as a huge issue.

I am a mom, and any parent in this chamber today or anyone watching would be concerned. It is really important that, as parents, we know what is on the Internet. We recognize that companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook are doing as much as they possibly can to remove some of these horrible images off the Internet, but we need to do more. We need to do more because pornography is desensitizing normal healthy relationships.

A normal healthy relationship is something we can always discuss, and we see that it expands and changes all the time. However, when pornography is there and we know that over 80% of our young boys are watching pornography, what will it do to them when it comes to having a healthy relationship?

Those are some huge concerns I have, so I think this is most timely and that we should be studying this in the health committee. I also urge the status of women committee to make sure this is very important in the report we will be doing about violence against women, because we need to see the correlation between pornography and what it is doing to our country, to our young boys and girls, and to our families. We see that abuse occurs because of that.

I appreciate all the work that the member for Peace River—Westlock has done on this to bring it to the committee and to the House of Commons so that we can have a conversation about it and make sure that we recognize what is healthy and what is unhealthy. As a parent, whenever I come across pornography, I recognize that it is extremely unhealthy.

Once again, I thank the member for bringing this forward. I recognize that many members are nodding their heads and that they understand this really important topic.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I met with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities when its members were here in their lobbying week. I asked them directly if they were here to see me as a critic looking at something national or as a rural MP who represents rural Canada. They wanted to speak to me as a rural Canadian. Funnily enough, the people who were sent here were from Toronto and Montreal. I think they do a wonderful job, and two days later, I was fortunate enough to have someone from the city of London come to speak with me.

If we invest in an infrastructure bank, the problem I see is that the people from urban Canada I speak with believe that it will be good, because it will be good for their projects. However, we do not have large infrastructure projects of that huge proportion unless we amalgamate all of our programs together. Therefore, I am really worried, and I know that Elgin—Middlesex—London will not see a dollar from that infrastructure bank.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have two parts to my answer.

First, Karl Crocker from Sparta has written, “I don't think our present government gives a '_____' about the average rural tax payer. With the carbon tax, hydro rates and now natural gas going up. We are mad.” That says to me that Canadians, at least those living in Elgin—Middlesex—London, are not happy.

We are hearing from different people, obviously. I am hearing from people in Elgin—Middlesex—London in southwestern Ontario. We are not seeing infrastructure being built. We are not seeing new job creation. I am fortunate, but for the people living in the province of Ontario right now, I feel for those who are unemployed.

Second, we need to create an environment where businesses will come to this country, where businesses will continue to invest in their future and for their employees. We had the Canada jobs grants, which I am hoping the government will continue to support. I only hear from these businesses when it is a great thing, when people whom they know are great employees get the opportunity to increase their productivity, to increase their knowledge, so they can continue to have excellent employment. Therefore, continue with our training to make sure that we can get people back to work, and make sure we are graduating people—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I will remind the member what a tax is. It is when people pay money back to the government. We are going to see the government taking money for the carbon tax. The member may not call it a carbon tax; he may want to call it something fluffier, but that is exactly what it is. It is money that is going to be coming out of everyday Canadians' pockets, and it is going to be put into the coffers of the Liberal government. That is a tax. We are also going to see an increase in CPP premiums. That is a tax.

I do not care personally if people shake their heads. That is fine. The member and I may have different ideas on what we would call a tax, but even in the last couple of days, our official critic for health has been asking about health and dental tax benefits, and the members opposite have not denied it. We see time and time again: tax, tax, tax.

I think one of the biggest things we see in this bill is the small business tax not being reduced. The bill is hurting the small businesses and employment environment.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from the beautiful area of Edmonton Riverbend.

I am honoured to represent the hard-working people of Elgin—Middlesex—London, and today I stand to discuss Bill C-29 with many of their concerns in mind.

Just one year ago, the Liberals promised modest deficits, and made many more promises. We have seen media reports that show the cost of food will go up 5% in the new year. Not one new full-time job has been created. With the new measurements put in place by the government, it is harder for Canadians to purchase homes under the new mortgage laws. Instead, we see huge deficits, high taxes, and low economic growth.

We have heard about the carbon tax that will be introduced by all provincial and territorial governments, and enforced by the federal government. We have an infrastructure bank that will not be supporting rural Canada at all. We have infrastructure projects that the government suggests have been approved, but where is the actual work being done? The tax cuts that were scheduled for small businesses have been reversed. The tax credits that helped families offset the costs of children's arts and fitness programs have been cancelled. We have seen extravagant spending on programs, but nothing to show for the expenditure of these dollars.

Canadians are growing concerned. Just yesterday in the House, the government did not deny its plans for new taxes on health and dental benefits.

With every middle-class tax cut, there is a new tax introduced for all Canadians, young and old, rich and poor.

Let us stop kidding ourselves. The economy is stagnant, and the Liberals' promise to spend their way to prosperity is failing. Although there is a lot of talk, I am honestly worried not only for the next generation and the large debt load that the government is burdening it with, but also for our current generation, where people find it difficult to pay for their hydro and cannot find a job.

Students are graduating from universities with no chance of permanent full-time positions, and they are not getting the chance to use their higher education because the government is not creating the necessary environment for job creation.

Is the sky falling? No, but it is pretty gloomy out there.

Back in July, I did a lot of media interviews regarding the new Canada child benefit. As the critic for families, children and social development, I was asked my thoughts on this new program. I will not deny that it does help families. However, we are talking about a very unsustainable program. According to the parliamentary budget officer, it will cost $42.6 billion over the next five years. The parliamentary secretary said that these plans would be going forward regardless of the strain on public finances. I wonder where this money will come from? If we have a government that does not create a single job and spends out of control, where do we get the revenue to pay for these programs? I hope the government is listening to this speech and keeping that in mind.

The answer to this question, as we see it, is more taxes. More and more taxes will continue to be introduced by the Liberal government with no concern for the average taxpayer.

In an open letter received at my office on December 1, which was sent to the members of the Canadian Parliament, the author discusses the impacts of Bill C-29, and, “the complicated, administratively burdensome, and compliance challenged income tax provision” that will be placed on businesses. Who would want, and why would we want, this to be the case? We see a lot of things coming down from the Liberal government that do not seem to be looked at and do not seem to be the appropriate measures for an average Canadian and for Canadian businesses.

We have heard many quotes in the House from executives and analysts, but I would like to share with the House five quotes from people who I think are experts, taxpayers who pay their bills, and the bills of the government. These are from householders, and I will quote the fantastic people and constituents from Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Wayne Johnston from St. Thomas wrote, “I believe that policies such as the carbon tax and so-called cap and trade initiatives are environmentally useless and serve only to increase the tax burden on Canadians who are already over taxed.”

Karl Crocker from my hometown of Sparta wrote, “I don't think our present government gives a...about the average rural tax payer. With the carbon tax, hydro rates and now natural gas going up. We are mad.”

Gary and Vickie Gould from St. Thomas wrote, “The carbon tax is going to chase us out of our home....We have already two medium size businesses going to the United States if the carbon tax goes through. They do not want to move, but we have to because of the cost of their utilities.”

James Manning from Dorchester, “1. Good paying jobs need to be secured and new investment in Canada in job sectors is needed. 2. Follow up on government work projects to be completed as stated.”

These parties have concerns also for the 2017 budget. People are getting on track and voicing their opinions now because they are concerned with what they are seeing in their Canada today.

Edwin Zavitz from Dorchester said, “The Liberal Goo will do the same as always and tax and spend and steal from the people. The Prime Minister is the same as his father. Looks down his nose at Canadians.”

The government needs to start listening to taxpayers who are the people burdened by the government's debt. Without proper employment and precarious employment, revenue to the government is going to be precarious.

Despite the big spending being done by the government, the Bank of Canada, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have all downgraded their forecasts for Canada for both 2016 and 2017.

Jobs are in short supply, and I have not seen the job creation that the government has promised. The cost of living continues to rise and the government is making it harder for Canadians. The government needs to refocus its plans for growing the economy. Instead of meeting at Liberal fundraisers with billionaires, the government needs to start meeting with small business owners and ordinary everyday Canadians.

The philosophy that actions speak louder than words needs to be front of mind for the government. We hear so much about the government's plans to raise more families into the middle class, but we do not see programs that actually do it.

We hear time and time again about reducing taxes for the middle-class on the one hand, but on the other hand, all we see are tax increases for every Canadian.

The carbon tax is something extremely concerning to me. During the month of November, I held an agricultural round table with local producers. The carbon tax was discussed and it was a great concern to many of these farmers. I would like to note that during this discussion, it was not I who brought up the carbon tax. It was just in a regular round table where people could speak their mind.

We know it will increase the costs of doing business. In Elgin—Middlesex—London, over 20% of people are connected to the agricultural sector. What type of negative impact will we see? We hear that the price of gas will be going up 11¢ per litre. What happens to rural Canadians who have to drive to work every day?

Public transportation is not an option, therefore the growth with their strategy does not have any impact on farmers or rural people from Rodney to Thorndale in my riding. Because of this new tax, they will see increased expenses.

We know that the cost of shipping goods will be increased. At the end of the day, this cost will be passed on to the consumer. The same people will be paying more for gas, taxed on their dental and health benefits, and taxed to pay for this huge debt. They will continue to pay more money out of their pockets.

The government needs to find a solution to help put people back to work. It needs to find a way of getting those who are looking for jobs back into the labour force. People cannot continue to be unemployed.

That takes me to the changes to the employment insurance, changes that were made to the program in 2013 and were focused on helping get people back to work. We recognize that employment insurance is a temporary solution, and a huge majority of Canadians believe so as well. The best option is to improve employment insurance to assist people to find jobs and create jobs.

Instead, the government is taking anything done in the past 10 years, good or bad, and reversing it. We see that with so many of its bills that have been introduced in the past year. The government has indicated that Canadians voted for change. I am not sure that Canadians who voted for change expected to see what they do today.

I hear all the time that we can do better, and I definitely agree. When is the government going to start?

[Ethics, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, for years, the Trudeau Foundation relied on donations from Canada. It was 2014 when the foreign money started to flow. In 2015, nearly $430,000 of foreign donations were given to the foundation. However, the Prime Minister landed a huge donation when his Communist Chinese friends gave $1 million, including $50,000 to the building of a statue of his father.

When will the Prime Minister admit that mixing his personal, party, and government business is wrong, and when will he put an end to it?

[Water Quality, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to discuss Motion No. 69 and look forward to reading the amendments put forward through the deputy House leader.

I truly hope my husband is listening, because this is a personal and public service announcement. After doing this research, I am thinking of my own house, which was built in the 1960s. Are there or are there not lead pipes in my own home? I will have to go home and check tonight.

The motion aims to address the growing concerns about water quality delivered via lead pipes to private residences throughout Canada.

I will start with the concerns about lead drinking water pipes and why Canadians should be concerned about them. I will discuss solutions that have been recommended and that some municipalities addressed.

According to the Canadian guidelines, the acceptable concentration of lead found in water is 0.01% milligrams per litre. What are the consequences and why should we as Canadians be concerned?

We know that lead is a toxic metal that can be harmful to human health, especially children, infants, and fetuses. This group is very vulnerable, as exposure to this metal can lead to physical and behavioural affects. It can damage the central and peripheral nervous system, and lead to learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells. For fetuses, consumption of lead by the mother accumulates and can be released to the fetus. It can cross the placental barrier, exposing the fetus to lead. This can cause reduced growth of the fetus and possibly premature birth. In adults, exposure to lead can cause increased blood pressure and hypertension, along with decreased kidney function and reproductive problems.

In Flint Michigan, just across the Canada-U.S. border, close to my own home, following a change in water supply, a high concentration of lead was found. Thousands of children were exposed to these toxic substances. This was a result of Flint's use of old pipes that were corroding due to the chemical changes in the source water. We Canadians can learn from this crisis.

Research has indicated that the brain can absorb lead, which results in negative effects on the frontal cortex, which in turn can have a negative impact on essential learning and memory, and attention and planning. The effects of lead can be permanent and can result in lifelong disabilities. In the U.S., lead is considered the number one health threat to children.

According to the World Health Organization, children absorb between four to five times as much lead as adults when ingested. There is no safe level of lead in blood concentration.

What is the issue?

Here in Canada, post-war, many homes were built and both municipalities and home owners used lead pipes. It is just in the past 36 years that lead pipes have stopped being used altogether. Although the federal government has no direct involvement, at the same time we must ensure that the water for Canadians is safe to drink.

Together with the provinces and territories, Health Canada has established the “Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality”, but we must remind ourselves that it is up to the jurisdictions to set their own guidelines and enforcement.

We understand that this is cost for municipalities and homeowners to replace these pipes that have corroded over time and allowed lead to leach. Measures taken in the past few decades have greatly reduced the exposure of lead in tap water. Through proper testing, the amount of lead in water can be determined. Sampling protocols have been recommended and steps to reduce population exposure have also been provided.

We understand that it can cost homeowners up to $10,000 to replace these pipes from the municipal lines to their homes, as well as their own plumbing. We must recognize that the cost that is taken on by the municipalities is only for their own public pipelines and not for the pipeline that goes from that source into a home. This is something that homeowners will have to be aware of.

Across Canada, many municipalities have already taken action. In Halifax, a lead pipe replacement program was put in place. In Edmonton, water tests have been completed. In Montreal, the city implemented a 20-year plan to address the lead toxins in its drinking water.

Health Canada's “Guidance on Controlling Corrosion in Drinking Water Distribution Systems” is a great resource for all Canadians, whether personally or in government, to refer to. The document addresses the common issues of corrosion as well as corrosion control. The document indicates that the intent is to provide responsible authorities with guidance on assessing corrosion and implementing corrosion control for distribution systems and residential settings. It notes proper protocols and steps for monitoring. It also indicates that the role of the federal government “is primarily one of science and research, including the development of guidelines for drinking water and providing scientific and technical expertise to the provincial and territorial governments.”

We know that lead can leach into potable water through pipes, solders, and fittings.

There is guidance to prioritizing residential monitoring sites, as well as a detailed explanation of conditions that favour lead leaching in drinking water distribution, including treatment plants, distribution systems, plumbing systems, and even at our own taps. This information can be found in the document at healthycanadians.gc.ca.

Truly, what can we do?

Across Canada, many municipalities have provided testing and have worked with homeowners to replace their pipes because of health risks.

When we know that there is a solution, we should be taking action, but not necessarily at the federal level. We must recognize the inconsistency among municipalities of implementing the recommendations from the 2009 report “Guidance on Controlling Corrosion in Drinking Water Distribution Systems” and we must be sure not to duplicate our efforts. This is a familiar thing done by many different governments. We seem to constantly study and study and study, and it is the same thing. We know this is an issue, and we should be doing something about it.

Meanwhile, we can also explore the impact to communities that have lead pipes but have increased pH levels, like Vancouver. Vancouver is a bit different because it has alkalinity in its water so the corrosion does not exist. Maybe taking an opportunity to look at the pH levels and see how we can tweak them to make sure there is no corrosion is another option for the government to take.

As in the report tabled during the previous government, information already exists and we must face the challenges including methods of measuring lead, monitoring programs, and prioritizing residential monitoring sites. We must recognize the financial impact to homeowners and to the taxpayers of Canada, while keeping the health of Canadians at top of mind.

I have noted the potential health risks, especially to young children, infants, and fetuses, and the unnecessary results from lead poisoning, including a variety of permanent disabilities.

As a party, we favour the elimination of lead in drinking water; however, we must respect the jurisdiction of municipal governments. The health of Canadians must be our priority, but we must understand the unique situations across Canada, from coast to coast to coast.

As a government, the Liberals should be looking at opportunities to make sure that we can change and educate and make sure that we have opportunities when it comes to testing and any other sources.

As I indicated, the federal government is in charge of scientific expertise. This is an opportunity for the government to do that as well, and I hope it will.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sarnia—Lambton and I are from the same area and know that in southwestern Ontario, the previous Government of Canada was right on track. We did a great job in those areas, especially during the global economic downturn.

As the member said, this bill was seen and studied by our previous government. Our status of women and industry ministers put forward information on things to do with regard to women. Our previous government did some great work on this. Unfortunately, we did not get to finish that work, but I do look forward to 2019.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to that question.

First of all, when we look at the bill and corporations, we recognize that it is something our former government was already aiming for. It was announced in a variety of bills, whether the 2015 budget or just different things that our ministers had been working on.

Second, I will look at the private member's bill put forward by an NDP member. However, one thing I am always cautious of is quotas. If there is a quota in there, I will scrutinize it hard, because we have to think if that is the right thing to do and the right leadership we need on this. I have not looked at the bill, but when it comes to quotas, I do not support them. I support having the best qualified people, but also doing our best to have gender parity. I need to look at the full bill so I can understand it better.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

When I looked at that approach, I had to recognize that there were certain boards and certain situations in which it was great to have balance, but that sometimes that balance was going to be a little heavy toward one gender or the other, including in organizations we are dealing with in our community. Sometimes the balance is not there, because the focus might be on a women's group, a man's group, or an athletic association.

When we are doing things like that, we do have to take into consideration the variety and the vast and broad nature of what boards do look like. Although I recognize that this kind of out-clause could be an issue, I am inspired by what I am seeing here within the House of Commons and our own communities. We have excellent women in our own communities doing great jobs. They are leaders on boards and in many manufacturing institutions.

I think we need to continue to inspire them. We need to continue to work to be their leaders and mentors.