- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Peterborough—Kawartha
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $106,196.43
- Government Page
- Jun/3/24 8:40:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am actually going to ask my colleague the same question that he asked me.
Why does he think that there seems to be this kind of attack toward families and not wanting to give them the opportunity to have a good time, basically to have fun?
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 8:26:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there has been an attack on families since the day the Prime Minister came into office. Canada has the lowest birth rate in history. He does not care about the family. He cares about power and control, and so does the NDP leader, because he sold out his soul to ensure that he keeps power. That is the reality of the Prime Minister.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 2:31:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the level of hypocrisy on that side of the House is nothing short of astonishing. The Prime Minister is literally jet-setting around the world on his gas-fuelled jet, while the health minister has said people should not go on a family trip because it will cause the planet to “burn”. We have the simplest common-sense motion right now that will save Ontario families $592. That might mean nothing to them, but it means a lot.
Will the government listen, have some compassion and axe the tax so that families can make memories and enjoy their time together?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 2:37:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the lack of a classy response I would expect from the Liberals. The reality is that he does not know what is going on because he clearly does not listen.
These are 50 real families accessing a food bank under that Prime Minister's watch. It is $700 more in groceries a year for Canadian families. Low-income families are most impacted. There are a million more users of food banks this year. They are students, seniors and low-income families. Those are the facts. That is what we will keep fighting for. Spike the hike. Axe the tax.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 4:12:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that access to child care is the number one issue in supporting mothers getting back to work or choosing to work outside of the home.
There are a couple of things I want to correct on the record. This bill is already in effect. It is already happening. These agreements have already been signed. What we are arguing and debating today in the House are two amendments that were put through the Senate that Conservatives supported but the Liberals did not, and now we are here.
My question to the member opposite is this. If one cannot access child care, then what is it? What we do know is what has come out of Stats Canada. Under this $10-a-day child care, 77% of high-income parents are accessing it under this Liberal program, versus 41% of low-income families. Does he support that?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:24:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I am very happy to get up all day, every day to elevate the voices of the families that have been left out by this failed Liberal-NDP policy, in particular, families with kids with special needs. We know that both neurodivergence and the need for the labour force to accommodate these kids are going up. When fees are capped, as they have been under the Liberal-NDP program, we are seeing those most vulnerable suffer.
Has my member for Northumberland—Peterborough South heard these stories? Have his constituents shared with him how kids with special needs are missing out, particularly with this program?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:21:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, though, my colleague, who is a dad, knows this. It has already been brought up once today by another member from British Columbia. It was a great point.
We have the facts now, coming out of the chaos that has endured as a result of this failed policy by the Liberal-NDP government, that 77% of high-income parents are accessing this program versus 41% of low-income families.
How does the member feel about that? What are his thoughts on what is supposed to be a universal program, when we see that the people who need it most are not accessing it?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 11:52:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame to hear that the Liberals want to close debate on a subject matter that is impacting families across this country, in every province and every territory. There is article after article talking about the chaos that has been unleashed due to this pipe dream that the Liberals sold Canadians of $10-a-day child care.
Today, we are forgoing a debate that is an opportunity in this House to bring forth the problem, both from operators and from families who cannot access child care. In particular, I want to mention this stat: 77% of high-income parents are accessing child care under the Liberal child care agreement versus 41% of low-income families. They want to shut down debate at a time when we should be having a very robust discussion on what is wrong in this country, so that we can fix it.
Why? Why would the Liberals want to shut down this debate for families, operators and everyone? This program is already in place, but by keeping this debate open, we would allow people's voices to be elevated so we can hopefully correct those concerns. Why are they doing this?
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:42:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I love how my colleague speaks about his wife and his children. Knowing him on a personal level, I know how valuable his children and family life are to him.
Going back to what he was talking about with the single moms, we have the stats here right now coming out of the child care program. I will reiterate what he was saying; 77% of high-income parents access child care, versus 41% of low-income families. Does he think we should be prioritizing those people who are most vulnerable and who need this most but who are not getting access to it fairly?
It is proven through the stats that the $10-a-day child care program by the Liberals and NDP is not equitable. What does the member have to say about that?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:32:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what is ironic about the member's question is that women do not have the choice to go to work. The stats are in. That is the reality of this program.
I talked to one day care operator and somebody had asked her why she did not opt out and why she opted into this program. She said to me that she absolutely wants to provide affordable, quality child care for people who need it, but this program was rigged from day one. She thought she was doing the right thing, but she was coerced into signing this agreement and they are taking money from her and taking away the choice for families.
That is what we wanted. We wanted to provide families with choice. We put forward the amendments in committee and the Liberals and the NDP voted down every single one.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 4:59:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my first question would be about what we are seeing now, which are the stats coming out that more families with lower incomes are not accessing this program. It is actually inequitable.
Higher-income families are accessing this program. Lower-income families are not. What is my colleague doing to fix that, and why is it happening?
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of my constituents of Peterborough—Kawartha. I am very honoured to be supporting my colleague and friend from Battlefords—Lloydminster and her Bill C-318, which I will be speaking to today.
I am the critic for families, children and social development. Since being elected, I have had the opportunity to speak to thousands of people across the country. There is something that I hope everyone in the House knows, and that is that our children are in a mental health crisis. There is no doubt about it and there is no denying it. It is everywhere we go. The increase of neurodivergence and the increase in the needs of our children are increasing as the cost of living is increasing and putting stress on parents.
There are huge issues across this country in affordability, housing and mental health. It is a spider web, and none of it can be separated. None of it can be treated without the other. As happens so often in government, at all levels, it is hard to start. How do we fix such significant, giant problems?
For people who do not know, a private member's bill is when a member of the House, in this case it is my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster, puts forward a bill to pass through the House. It is a tangible item that we can all work together on in the House, across all party lines, to approve and make sure it happens. It is something that starts the ball rolling. It is a tiny thing that would change the crisis we are in.
What is this? It is a bill that pushes for adoptive and intended parents to have extended EI benefits. Many people do not know this, but adoptive and intended parents do not get the same EI benefits that other parents do. Why is that? I do not know the answer. It seems pretty silly when we say it out loud. It seems like a very common sense thing.
One in six families in Canada is suffering from infertility. That number is going up. There are 20,000 children across this country who are members of the state, which means they are not with a family. The majority of those kids are over 10 years old. Those first years of life are when the brain is developing, and anybody who has any neuroscience background knows that the brain is a little playdough that gets mapped. If children are not loved or attached, or are in an environment that is not safe, that is going to cause long-term issues. There might be mental health issues, addiction issues or trouble forming healthy relationships. These are all things that we have studied in the FEWO committee.
We have an equity bill that offers that same amount of EI benefits for adoptive and intended parents. It is a compassionate, common sense bill that I think could get support throughout the entire House.
I am going to go into some of the details. Up to 15 weeks of additional leave allows a parent to stay home to care for their child, bond and form healthy attachments within the critical first year of their life or placement in a family. Bill C-318 also recognizes the unique needs and complexities of attachment for adoptive families by better supporting healthy attachments, and it will of course help improve long-term outcomes and strengthen families.
Carolyn McLeod, a professor and chair of the department of philosophy at Western University, did a survey of 974 adoptive parents and found that 94% of these parents would find additional benefits very beneficial and roughly 75% said that they did not have enough time to bond with their children. She stated that a significant portion of them said that the current benefit system was a barrier to them adopting a sibling group or children with complex needs. They did not feel that they would have enough time with a child in those circumstances, so they simply did not choose to adopt a child in those circumstances.
Every child and youth needs time to adapt and adjust to their new family. Trust is the foundation for attachment. Many of these kids, as we said earlier, are over 10 and are going to desperately need that time. Every person deserves to belong to a family, feel safe and know that they have somebody who has their back.
The Liberal government has long promised to deliver 15 additional weeks of parental leave for adoptive families, but it has repeatedly failed to deliver on that promise. Back in 2019, the Prime Minister campaigned on fixing this problem; yet another broken promise.
Despite overseeing the file and being mandated to fix this problem for four years, the former minister of employment, workforce development and disability inclusion would not commit to providing the necessary royal recommendation for this bill. It was within her mandate as minister to introduce a 15-week leave for adoptive parents. Most recently, the former minister publicly alluded to a benefit for adoptive parents included in the 2023 budget, yet when the budget was delivered it was not there.
I will give a call to action for everyone watching at home, because sometimes it just sounds like there is a lot of talk in the House. People can directly message the minister and say that they need the minister to approve the royal recommendation, because if it does not happen, this bill dies. That is what needs to happen; that is what we are calling on today.
We have heard from all parties and they have given great speeches. I thank my colleagues from the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party. They see the value in this bill. How can they not? However, there has to be action attached to the words or they are just empty promises.
I want to read for members a lovely story from Kyla Beswarick, who has gone through the process herself. She stated:
35 weeks is simply not enough time for a youth like me to feel comfortable with an entirely different family, let alone build trust with these unknown parental figures. I believe, we, who through no fault of our own, have experienced significant losses, deserve equal if not more time to heal and attach to our new family.
These are the stories we need to hear, and this is all members need to know to support my colleague's, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, bill today.
Canada is an outlier in not providing equal leave for all families. If we look at comparator countries such as Australia, New Zealand and U.K., we see that they all provide equal leave to these families. Moreover, it would not be a huge cost burden.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimate, the proposed new EI attachment benefit for adoptive and intended parents would cost $88 million over 2023-24 to 2027-28. When we look at fiscal responsibility, this is it. It is how money is spent. It is where it is directed. It is the return on investment. I would challenge anyone in the House to tell me what better return on investment there is than building healthy families, than teaching children that they are loved and supported, than helping parents not stress about being with their children when they need it most.
Again, I will leave with this. I call on the Minister of Employment and Workforce Development today to provide royal recommendation, because if he does not, the bill will die. I encourage every single member in the House to start off this session showing Canadians that we mean what we say and we say what mean, and that we care about children and families in our country.
I want to congratulate my colleague on Bill C-318. I thank everyone for supporting it.
1339 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the YMCA was brought up. I have a letter here from Christine Pasmore, a day care provider, who talks about two YMCA after-school care locations that will be closing because of this bill. I thought I would tie that in.
The hon. member brought up trust. Tonight we have breaking news that the Prime Minister's Office also knew about Paul Bernardo's transfer three months ago and did not tell the families.
Housing prices have doubled. We have a cost of living crisis, and public safety is eroding rapidly, so how could we trust the Liberals with our children and child care?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I find this really interesting, because as I said in my speech, the NDP often advocates for the most vulnerable, which is wonderful, but we have on record Ms. Maggie Moser, who has said in committee that:
The implementation provides undue benefits to higher-income families, who are sailing their yachts on the tides of the program, while those who need it most are left drowning.
Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list.
How does the member reconcile that?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really think it is important to say that this is not down and negative. It is reality. There is a very big difference between telling everybody that everything is great and telling the reality that 50% of kids are left out.
Why would we vote in favour of this? It is because the toothpaste is out of the tube. We do not want to punish the families that have benefited from this. What we want to do when we are in government, and we will be, is fix this. Right now, there is no flexibility. There is no choice. There are ideological shackles on both the provinces and parents.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate how my colleague is advocating for the people who do have access to these spaces, but what the alarm bells are, and what we are really trying to get across here tonight, are those who do not have access. There are reports coming out that say that child care spots are available for only 29% of those who need them. That is from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit.
Particular to the member's riding, in British Columbia, 64% of children are in a child care desert. That means three children are competing for one spot. Has the member reached out to these families? Has he listened to these families? What is his solution for increasing access?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague had a thoughtful intervention. I guess my question to him would be this: Does he believe that families and parents in his riding should have access to and should be able to choose what type of child care they send their children to?
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that we do want the same thing. We 100% want the same thing. What is upsetting is saying we should only look at what is great. That is not what we are here to do. We are here to figure out what is not working so that we can fix it. That is the whole point. When the Conservatives are criticizing and when we are elevating the concerns of thousands and thousands of parents, it is because 29% of families have access to spaces and 50% of children are in a child care desert. I think that warrants a legitimate criticism.
Alicia Bishop wrote to me. Alicia is a mother of four, an active member in her community, a former teacher, an owner of a child care facility and a proud female entrepreneur. She said, “I would like this to have very careful consideration. Introducing $10-a-day fees to parents is an important step forward, but it must be made with very careful consideration, as it is critical that we get this right and not disrupt the private model that has been working so well in Alberta for decades. The bottom line is we need to maintain quality, innovation and incentive to make this work.”
Will the hon. member consider including private and all forms of child care so we can meet the demand the Liberals have created?
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think real leadership is not choosing to see what one wants to see, but seeing the truth and acknowledging all of that, and this is so insulting to the families. I am going to look to Saskatchewan right now, where 10% of families have access to child care. That is 90% that do not, so it is not true that it is wonderful, great and life changing for everyone. I guess what we are looking for is what the plan is, because this is not working. So many families are being left out, and the data says that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has hit the nail on the head. We have seen this repeatedly. I touched on this in my speech. There is no respect for anyone who offers any other idea or any other solution than what the Liberal ideology puts forward. They think they know best. They do not believe in choice for families. They do not respect provincial jurisdiction. They do not respect Canadians, period. That is evident by the crisis that our country is in.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
