Karen Vecchio

[Ministerial Expenses, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal after Liberal has gotten up over the past few weeks to defend the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and sky palace 2.0. Initially he tried to defend his actions by claiming that this was simply the Liberals doubling the infrastructure budget. Apparently only Liberal ministers need to apply.

Does the minister feel embarrassed to know that his colleagues are being forced to support his spending almost $1 million on fridges and flat screens?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I too am a huge advocate for the Canada summer jobs program. As a parent, I believe it is very important for students to have jobs so that they learn transferable skills, such as serving in a restaurant and applying that in their own lives. All customer-service skills and other skills are true assets, and I agree with that.

Unfortunately, I am going to speak more about what happened in my riding. For the Canada summer jobs program, the number has gone up to over $700,000. Also, when I look at other ridings, some small businesses received $70,000 in grant money for students. I will advocate all of the time when it is necessary for students to have these transferable skills, but I am wondering what the member opposite thinks when a private company receives $70,000. How is that company going to compete with another company?

Is it in our best interest to make sure there are great jobs for students that are going to continue or is it in our interest just to give $70,000 to one company and make it more competitive than another company?

[National Defence, June 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, given the investments in the CF-18 life extension program made by the previous government, defence experts agree that there is no immediate need to run a mixed fighter jet fleet in the interim.

Retired General George Petrolekas of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute said he does not see the value of an interim purchase. He asks, why not just go straight to the competition right now?

It is a good question. Why is the government putting politics ahead of our armed forces? Why not go to the competition right now?

[National Defence, June 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, defence experts agree that the Liberals made a promise that was impossible to keep when it comes to replacing Canada's aging fighter jets. Not only have the Liberals broken this promise, they are doing so with great costs to taxpayers, as our air force will have to run a mixed fleet. Unlike Australia, Canada does not need a stop-gap solution. The defence minister claims the CF-18 life extension project will continue. Given that reality, why are the Liberals moving forward with a band-aid solution to a non-existent problem?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to discuss Bill C-15 today, an act to amend certain provisions of the budget. Today, I would like to discuss two different issues. One thing I will be discussing is old age security and what I think we should be looking at. It is great to join in those kinds of conversations.

As I said, I will be discussing things that are important to Canadians, seniors and youth. I will begin with changes to old age security and eligibility being reversed from 67 back down to 65.

In March 2016, the Prime Minister made the announcement in the United States that the government was going to do this. When the Conservative government made the changes in 2012, it was taking a very complex issue and putting forward a very simple solution. The Prime Minister has now put forward a very simple solution to a very complex issue just by reversing it. These are considerations that we have to look at.

We see countries like the United States, Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and a variety of other countries in the industrialized world that have made these increases to age eligibility, and there are many factors in doing so. Last week, I joined the discussion in the House with the Minister of Finance about old age security and I was looking for answers. Unfortunately, I did not find them, so I am hoping that today I can find some of the answers as we go forward.

I want to point out some of the facts. When we talk about old age security, we have to look at why it came into existence and how it has moved along.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

Back in the 1960s, when old age security was put forward, it was because the government saw that approximately 40% of seniors were living in poverty. At the time the change was made and the age went from 70 down to 65, there were approximately six workers for every one senior. Today, that ratio has changed to four workers for every senior, and in 20 years, there will be two workers for every senior receiving old age security.

To me or anybody who can do simple math, that is extremely problematic. In a simple pie chart, we can see that if half the group is working and the other half of the group is not working, who is going to be paying for the other half? We have to be aware of those things.

When I come to the House, I come with years of experience from working in a constituency office. Many people believe that they pay into and invest in old age security. We have to remind ourselves that old age security is derived from taxes for that year. It is not money that people put into it, like the Canada pension plan or RRSPs, or even pensions at work. Therefore, we must be aware of that when we are having these discussions.

If we look back to when the changes were made to old age security in the 1960s, the life expectancy for men was about 14 years above retirement age. In the 2011 to 2016 period, our life expectancy has grown. For males, it is 21 years above retirement age and for females, it is 25 years above retirement age. Just in those few decades, we see people living seven years longer and receiving old age security.

This is a big transition and we must recognize that there have been many changes since the 1960s, including the removal of mandatory retirement. If one person out of four is retired now, we must recognize that old age security is going to be drawn on very heavily and will be for a much longer period of time if people are living longer. In 2011, old age security was an expense to the Government of Canada of approximately $38 billion. In 2030, it is going to be $108 billion.

Let us look at two workers per pensioner. I welcome any solutions. The Prime Minister indicated we went back to a simple solution, but just yesterday, the anti-poverty committee came up with some excellent solutions. Even Mr. Shillington, who appeared at the anti-poverty committee yesterday, indicated the proposal for a gradual shift for old age security eligibility to go up to 67, as proposed by the Conservatives, and to move the age of eligibility for GIS back down to 60. Those are things we are going to look at.

In talking about a very complex issue, let us not just take such an easy solution as the government has done, reduce the age back down to 65 and say we will be fine and then deal with it in 20 years.

Another thing I want to discuss when it comes to this is that many women are very unfortunate. Perhaps they are single or widowed, and I recognize that one in three senior women are living in poverty. That is why we need to look at this complex issue and not just have such a simple approach by reversing the decision.

We must consider that in the future this is truly going to be a greater deficit, with more and more spending, and those middle-class families the government says it is going to help are going to be stuck footing the bill when we have not looked at any long-term solutions.

Therefore, I urge the government to look at solutions. We cannot just have short-term solutions. We need to have long-term solutions as well. Those are some of the concerns I have.

One of my biggest concerns is the deficit. We talk about the middle class. This middle class is going to have more deficit and more debt than we can even imagine with all the spending we have here.

I see you would like me to stop, Mr. Speaker.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, June 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member for his opinion.

If Air Canada goes forward with this and it is doing maintenance work with one employee in Winnipeg, one employee in Mississauga, and one employee in Montreal, do you think this would actually fulfill what this new legislation is proposing? Could that possibly be the case?

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, June 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, there are many different opportunities that we have for that.

I looked at some of the different things that our government did work with, and even something as simple as lowering the GST. It may not be as much to aerospace, but it was to all businesses, to all Canadians, that reduction from 7% to 6% to 5%. It is one of the small things that we have done. As I said, it was more general and not specific to aerospace.

However, we have done many things. Working with our provincial levels of government and making sure that we support our workers here in Canada was the most important thing.

Anything to do with business is what the Conservative government did in the 10 years prior to 2015. We made great efforts to make sure that the red tape was cut and that we cut taxes for corporations so they had a better opportunity to create more jobs and be successful.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, June 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member very much for that, because when I was reviewing the legislation that was put forward, I, too, looked at some of the words, and they are very open-ended. It is so grand and general, but it does not say that these jobs are going to be secure. It indicates the activities, which can mean one thing, but jobs and employment are a totally different thing.

Therefore, I agree with the member on the language. It is very ambiguous. It does not indicate jobs, but it indicates activities, which are two very separate issues.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, June 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am going to remind the parliamentary secretary that the courts enforce the act and the government changes the laws. That is what our job is, and I will remind him of that as he states what we did six years ago.

The bottom line is that we are talking about these jobs and about things being moved around the country. We need to see that we are going to continue having these jobs in Canada. That is what our position is. We want to make sure that the jobs are secure in Canada, and we do not see this in the legislation.

I thank the member for pointing out that they did speak to the other provincial governments. I am going to remind him that they spoke to the governments, but they did not listen to the governments because the two provincial governments are requesting it to be delayed. It is great to have a one-way conversation, but the Liberals did not get any results from it.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, June 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today for report stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

Governments, and especially new governments, have to set priorities and decide what they want to achieve during the length of their mandate.

Each party campaigns on a platform that is expected to serve as a road map for its early days as a government. Over the course of the campaign, parties make dozens of commitments. Upon taking office, a government must decide which commitments it wants to prioritize. A government must make decisions on what it wants to do right away, what it will do in six months, in two years, and what it will never do. On occasion, the Supreme Court will force the government to introduce legislation, as has been the case with Bill C-7 and Bill C-14.

Other pieces of legislation, like the budget, are presented each year. Because new governments like to check items off of the list of fulfilled campaign commitments during the first year, we often see legislation that reflects their campaign commitments. However, Liberal campaign commitments, like restoring mail delivery, have been pushed back on the priority list with the promise of consultations. Additional funding for the CBC has been pushed down the list of priorities because of a lengthy consultation process. A response to VIA Rail's proposal to build a dedicated track between Toronto and Montreal will take three years due to consultations.

It took the Liberals seven months to create a committee to enact consultations on electoral reform that is effectively identical to every House of Commons committee, and whose recommendations will be both non-binding and, like the preferred option of the Prime Minister, a ranked ballot.

The Minister of Transport has decided to spend an entire year consulting on the recommendations of the Emerson report, which was itself the product of 18 months of consultations with the entire transportation industry.

On so many issues, the Liberal government has pushed back making a decision to a later date.

However, with Bill C-10, we have none of that. What we have is a bill that came out of nowhere and was not the product of any consultations. Why is the government being so inconsistent?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport confirmed, during its second reading debate, that she was rushing this bill through so that the stakeholders could provide input during the committee stage. She was outsourcing her government's consultative responsibilities to committee. A parliamentary committee studying a bill is not a consultative body. Its purpose is to probe the bill for weaknesses and address these weaknesses through amendments if the majority of the members agree.

Witnesses at committee, including the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, highlighted a number of obvious weaknesses in the legislation. The opposition proposed amendments to address some of these problems. In the case of Bill C-10, the Liberal majority did not accept any of these amendments to the legislation.

If the purpose of sending the bill to committee so quickly was so that the stakeholders could provide input on the legislation, then why did the Liberal members ignore the recommendations? This illustrates more inconsistency on behalf of the government.

While all of us support a regulatory environment that allows for a viable legacy carrier in Canada and affordable air travel, I do not think a single Liberal candidate campaigned on reducing Air Canada's maintenance obligations as they are described in the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Considering the government appears to be in no rush to do anything else, its incredible haste to get this legislation that came out of nowhere passed before the summer has opened up a Pandora's box of questions. By now most members are aware that in 2013 the Government of Quebec, with the Government of Manitoba as an intervenor, brought Air Canada to court to challenge the carrier's assertion that it was fulfilling its maintenance obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Quebec Superior Court, presided over by Justice Castonguay, ruled on the side of the Attorney General of Quebec. Consequently, Air Canada appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of Quebec, and that court upheld the lower court's ruling in November 2015. On January 5, 2016, Air Canada announced that it would challenge that ruling in front of the Supreme Court. Less than two months later, Air Canada began negotiating with Quebec and Manitoba to end litigation, starting with the signing of a letter of intent to purchase 45 C Series aircraft. Whether Air Canada decided it would lose its appeal in front of the Supreme Court or the Government of Canada prodded it to make a purchase of the at the time troubled C Series aircraft, the carrier started to propose real commitments to keep some of its overhaul maintenance work in Quebec and Manitoba.

As the Government of Quebec has recently placed over $1 billion U.S. into the C Series program, it was obviously pleased to see Air Canada make the first major purchase of the aircraft.

This point cannot be made clear enough. Air Canada was forced to negotiate a settlement with Quebec and Manitoba because the carrier lost in court.

What Air Canada has proposed to settle its lawsuit in the case of Quebec is the purchase of the C Series and a commitment to undertaking maintenance of these aircraft for 20 years in the province. Air Canada also proposed to create a centre of excellence in aircraft maintenance in Quebec. In the case of Manitoba, Air Canada announced a willingness to transfer about 150 jobs from other parts of the country to Winnipeg. It is worth noting that these are not new jobs, merely work that is being shuffled from one part of Canada to another.

These Air Canada commitments to do maintenance work on narrow body aircraft in Canada are good, but these are not listed in the act we are debating today. Air Canada is making these commitments because it lost in court on the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

The Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba understand that if the law is repealed, as is being proposed by the Liberals, then their negotiating position with Air Canada will be swept out from under them. That is why both provinces explicitly asked the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities during the study of the bill to only allow this legislation to pass upon conclusion of their litigation against Air Canada. These calls came on deaf ears.

None of the Liberal members at the committee questioned the statements by Manitoba's deputy premier or Quebec's minister of the economy asking for more time, or attempted to justify the prompt passage of this legislation. The Minister of Transport's own officials also confirmed at committee that there was no legal or technical reason why speedy passage of the legislation was necessary.

Therefore, here we are. We have a bill in front of us that two provincial governments have asked for its coming into force to be delayed, and there are huge questions concerning why it is being rushed through Parliament so quickly ahead of the rest of the Liberal agenda.

We also have the problem that the Liberals are missing an important opportunity to make Air Canada and the entire aerospace sector annually more competitive. The Emerson report, which I mentioned earlier in my remarks, made a number of good suggestions that would stimulate the aerospace sector while maintaining jobs in Canada. For example, the government could tie all airport improvement fees to specific projects, explicit sunset provisions, which would ensure that these fees are to fund a specific project and not the airport's overall operations. They could look at overhauling the airport security model to mirror those used at major international airports, like London's Heathrow or Amsterdam's Schiphol, which have clear customer service standards and much lower delivery costs.

However, the bill does not do any of that, and we have not heard any indications from the Minister of Transport that measures to improve the competitiveness of the entire airline industry are forthcoming.

I look forward to questions from the government and opposition members.