- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Independent
- Spadina—Fort York
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 62%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $144,966.01
- Government Page
- Apr/10/24 6:31:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the parliamentary secretary for struggling to find a coherent theme. There is such a litany of failures. Where does one even begin? The $10-a-day child care sounds great, but there are 100,000 fewer spaces. What use is affordable child care if there are no spaces to access?
On the carbon tax, let us put aside the fact that the independent and non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer says more Canadians are hurt than helped and just focus on the fact that the government had promised small businesses $2.5 billion in rebates, yet has conveniently forgotten this. That $2.5 billion is owed to small businesses, which are the lifeblood and engine of our economy. It is not a personal slush fund for the government to try to buy votes or cover up for the fact that its spending has been out of control. It is not the government's money but Canadians' hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
I hope the government will reflect on its actions to date and ensure that it guards, safeguards, protects and invests taxpayer dollars responsibly.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 3:12:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some UNRWA personnel are said to have participated in the October 7 Hamas terror attack. However, Canada had sent UNRWA $48 million by the time the government got around to suspending its funding. Aside from transparency, timing and creative accounting, International Development, Global Affairs, is now shocked to learn taxpayer dollars have been going to an agency joined at the fanatical hip with Hamas.
Does the Minister of International Development still think UNRWA is a “trusted” agency, or is he finally going to recognize that taxpayers do not like funding an agency linked to a listed terror group?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:07:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here this evening to try to understand why the Minister of International Development was such a stalwart defender of UNRWA and to get clarity for Canadians on how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being used.
When I asked the government last year, on December 14, 2023, about the $10 million in additional taxpayer dollars it pledged to UNRWA in spite of evidence on the misuse of international aid by Hamas, instead of treating it with the seriousness that it deserves, the minister accused me of making “political points”. It is not political to want to ensure Canadian tax dollars are not being used to fund terrorism. It is the government's moral and legal duty. In the minister's response, he noted that he “had numerous meetings with the head of UNRWA, Mr. Lazzarini” and emphasized that he will continue to work with “trusted agencies, like UNRWA”.
I would like to tell the minister and the federal government about their trusted agency. On October 7, 2023, six UNRWA workers were part of a wave of Hamas militants who killed 1,200 people. Two UNRWA workers also helped to kidnap Israelis. Just two days ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that intelligence estimates around 1,200 of UNRWA's roughly 12,000 employees in Gaza have links to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. That is one in 10 employees at the minister's trusted agency. About half have close relatives who belong to Islamist militant groups. The report also stated that 23%, or nearly one in four, of UNRWA male employees had ties to Hamas. An Arabic teacher at UNRWA is said to be a Hamas militant commander who took part in a terrorist attack on Kibbutz Be'eri where 97 people were killed and about 26 were kidnapped and taken as hostages. In 2017, the former head of UNRWA's union was fired after he was elected to Hamas' top political leadership. An UNRWA math teacher, belonging to Hamas, was close enough to a female hostage in Gaza that he took a picture of her. Another teacher was carrying an anti-tank missile the night before the invasion. Is that part of the trusted agency curriculum?
Since October 7, 2023, Hamas has stolen more than $1 million worth of UNRWA supplies, including fuel and trucks; and an intelligence assessment claims Hamas operatives are so deeply enmeshed within the UNRWA aid delivery enterprise that they coordinate transfers for the organization. Does any of this sound like an agency to be trusted?
UNRWA is an organization full of hate and it has been indoctrinating generations of innocent Palestinians to hate Jews. I have been reading excerpts of UNRWA's textbooks and I cannot believe what it has been teaching. Did members know that teachers are required to punish students who do not directly connect Judaism to murder? Did they know terrorists are glorified as role models, and that suicide bombings and cutting the necks of the enemy are glorified?
Therefore, I would like to ask the government if it still believes UNRWA is a trusted agency and why Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill to support UNRWA when this so-called humanitarian agency participates in the operations and murderous actions of Hamas, a listed terrorist organization.
555 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate this evening on Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act. I believe this issue is non-partisan because it concerns the most important element of our country: its children. I want to begin with a quick level set just so that we are all working from the same fact base.
This bill sets out the vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system and its commitment to ongoing collaborations with the provinces and indigenous peoples. The bill also delineates principles where public and not-for-profit entities are exclusively called out for a focus that guides the ongoing federal investments established by the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, as announced by members of the council on November 24, 2022. Additionally, the bill notes a realization of the right to benefit from child care services, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it contributes to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Canadian parents have long hoped for the availability of affordable, safe and stable child care. To that effect, the government brought in a national child care program that proposed to cut day care fees by an average of 50% by the end of 2022 and down to an average of $10 per day by 2026. Earlier this year, the minister stated, per the National Post, that Bill C-35 would “enshrine the principles that provinces and territories agreed to in funding agreements with Ottawa, including the pledge to cut parent fees and create more spaces.”
The government had promised to introduce the legislation by the end of 2022 in its supply and confidence agreement with the New Democratic Party. While I wholeheartedly agree that affordable quality child care is critical, it becomes moot if people cannot access it or it simply does not exist. I am concerned that Bill C-35 does not address accessibility, and I am concerned that the government is embarking on a promise that it will not be able to deliver on. Moreover, I am concerned that $10-a-day child care does little to address the serious, real child care labour shortages and the lack of child care spaces.
I suggest that Bill C-35 would be good for families who already have a child care space, but it would not help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or the infrastructure to offer more spaces. Additionally, the bill would increase the demand for child care but would not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortages or access to more child care spaces. Simply put, there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operating new spaces. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has reported that “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.” That is a very sobering statistic.
Bill C-35 is also discriminatory. The majority of child care operators are women, yet the language and intent of this bill would prevent any growth in opportunities for privately run female child care operators. Also, how does the government expect more women to be able to go to work when there are no child care spots available and with wait-lists being years long?
The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day child care. However, the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000, leaving 227,000 children, or almost 40%, without access. That is two in five families that will be unable to access a spot. Government estimates also suggest that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. This is another staggering statistic.
In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. One child care director, who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces, stated, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it's for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week...in order to meet the licensing regulations”.
What then are worthy policy options to consider? I have three that I hope the government will seriously think about.
First, we must enable families of varying incomes to benefit. Based on the guiding principles of the child care framework, the government should support families that need child care most, based on their income, which in many cases is outlined within the individual provincial agreements. As well, the government should not be subsidizing child care of wealthy families that can already afford it.
Second, we should address the so-called “Matthew effect”. This is the increasing of the public provision that actually ends up advantaging higher-income families rather than lower-income groups. Even in the Quebec model, despite the gains in access, quality levels remain low when compared to the rest of Canada, with lower-income children in lower, rather than higher, quality settings.
Third, we should resolve the labour shortage. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operate new spaces. I think that is a point that is important to reiterate. The reality is that we cannot create new child care spaces without staff. Not enough students enter the ECE programs across Canada to support any growth, and it remains difficult to retain staff without the financial incentive to work in the field. The reality is that in British Columbia in 2022, 45% of employers reported losing more staff than they could hire, and 27% reported turning away children because of a lack of staff.
The lack of child care spaces across our country is considerable. In Ontario, the percentage of zero to 12-year-olds for whom full-day or part-time day care space was available was 25%. For children zero to five years, it was 21.3%. There are also so-called “child care deserts”. This is where there is a lack of, or inequitable distribution of, child care spaces or an FSA, or postal code region, with a coverage rate of less than one third of the child population. According to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report that was published in May 2023, 48% of children live in child care deserts, and the percentage of children living in child care deserts in Ontario is a considerable 53%.
What are the financial implications?
The 2021 budget pledged $30 billion over five years on a national child care system with an additional $9.2 billion annually coming after that period. The bill before us is about children, the future of our country, and we owe them a duty to ensure that we are getting the best value possible for them when it comes to our hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
In terms of stakeholder considerations, the major comments coming from child care providers suggest that Bill C-35, while a step in the right direction, is however too generic. The bill does not go into specifics. Additionally the private sector is cut out of the equation. There are also significant major labour shortages, with the majority of those who are working being overworked and understaffed. Bill C-35 would be good for families that already have a space but not for workers. The bill also would do nothing to address the long wait-lists for care across the country.
There are ways that Bill C-35 can be improved. In my province, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario suggested the following four amendments. First was to make the bill more inclusive by deleting the reference to public and not-for-profit child care providers. Second was to consider an addition that provides some guidance to advisory council members about avoiding potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety arising from their involvement on the council. Third was that advisory council members may also require guidance about avoiding any paid consulting or volunteer work related to political parties or candidates during their term on the council. Finally, fourth was to add additional specificity surrounding the composition of the advisory council with respect to regional representation as well as representation by female entrepreneurs and those involved in the direct delivery of licensed child care services.
In conclusion, I hope that Canadian families needing reliable, safe and affordable child care are able to access a national system that provides a viable program for generations to come.
1477 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 6:09:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is not the first time I have had a debate with the member, and it seems that each and every time, he makes it about me instead of the issue at hand. It is likely because he is having to rise to defend the indefensible.
The Harbourfront rink was an iconic venue. It is where new Canadians have come to learn to skate. I have heard from immigrants who have embraced skating and learned to skate on the very rink that is now being removed without any public consultation. It was a decision made behind closed doors by those who do not know the pulse of our community or care about what people want. Is this how the federal government cares about how $20 million in taxpayer money is spent?
I call upon Canadian Heritage to review the terms of this contribution, including its initial plans, and the complete failure by Harbourfront Centre to undertake public consultations.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 6:02:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am optimistic that tonight's debate on a previous question in the House will be responded to by the relevant representative for Canadian heritage as opposed to intergovernmental affairs.
It is likely tough to be coherent and understanding when it is not a matter under the jurisdiction of one's own department. Regardless, I want to ask again what I initially thought was a really straightforward question on a matter that is not only very much on the minds of many of my neighbours in Spadina—Fort York, but represents, to quote a constituent, “A loss to our community, the Greater Toronto Area residents, and the businesses along and in the waterfront neighbourhood.”
On August 21, 2021, the federal government announced an investment of $20 million for urgent repair and upgrade work at Toronto's Harbourfront Centre. The rationale was that improving culture and community infrastructure builds strong, dynamic and prosperous communities. However, such lofty objectives have fallen short of reality.
Part of the problem is that after obtaining the funds, Harbourfront Centre ignored obtaining input from residents, who very much wanted to see the funds put to good use in revitalizing Harbourfront so that it could still provide the updated quality of service and recreation that attracts over five million visitors annually.
In the winter months, Harbourfront's skating rink provides a well-attended attraction that has become a vibrant heart of our community, and it has been that way for decades. However, do not take my word for it. After a recent town hall that I convened on Harbourfront Centre, here are some of the comments that my constituents have said about the rink and the lack of public consultation.
Tracy told me that her four children enjoyed skating there. She said that it was so fun and that it was a free winter activity. The fact that Harbourfront Centre did not even consult the community is, in her words, egregious. She even asked whether the decision to uproot the rink involved “some kind of backroom shady deal”.
Renata would like to remind the government that “downtown Toronto suffers from a shortage of parks and recreational activities for families during winter”. She implores that this “beloved institution” be kept open.
Joan talked about how the skating rink has been the heart of the community.
Joe did not mince words. He would like the government to know that he does not “like the fact that fat pigs appointed by our government do whatever they want to the benefit of big fat corporations to get what they want.”
Gordon Moores wanted his comments completely attributed to him. Gordon is appalled at this unconscionable decision and that it was done without consultation. He would like the government to know that when his wife was diagnosed with cancer, one of the very first things they did that same day was go skating on the Harbourfront Centre rink.
The Harbourfront Centre rink was the heart of our community, the heart of our city. It was the only place where people from across Toronto and across the GTA could actually skate right on the shores of Lake Ontario. It is something that many residents and many visitors have been doing for generations.
My question to my hon. colleague is this. Is he okay with the government giving away 20 million dollars' worth of taxpayer dollars with little public consultation?
579 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 7:05:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that EI is an important tool and an important safety net. Saying this is something that is set every seven years is an easy cop-out, but the thing is that seven years ago we did not have the pandemic. Seven years ago, we were not facing the highest inflation rates and the cost of living increases in over 40 years, which is the highest it has ever been in the lifetime of half of Canadians, myself included.
Instead of his saying that this is something that is really not up to them and that it is done every seven years, I want to ask my hon. colleague to try to live in the now and the reality small businesses and workers are facing today. I will repeat the question: Will the government at least consider delaying the increase to payroll taxes to another time?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 6:58:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for spending his evening with me on this very important matter. Last month, on October 24, I raised the issue of increasing EI premiums, particularly at a time when in Canada, Canadian workers and small business owners are just fighting to stay afloat.
I know there has been some debate in this place back and forth on whether it is a direct payroll tax increase. We are going to put that aside because we know that even the Prime Minister, then the member of Parliament for Papineau in 2013, described it as such. What is important is that the definition does not matter. What matters is the impact that workers and small business owners from across my riding and the country are worried about.
In this place, we have discussed the headwinds that workers are facing: rampant inflation, skyrocketing costs of living, the continued record setting of new highs by food banks, and so on. Therefore, instead I want to read into the record the other side of the equation, which is the state of our small businesses, which employ over 88% of all Canadian workers in the private labour force. I am afraid to report that it is grim.
Last week, I met with people from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business who provided an update that, as I had feared, showed that Canadian small businesses continue to fight for survival. Nearly two-thirds have pandemic debt, with an average pandemic-related debt amount of $145,660. One-sixth of small business owners have considered permanently closing.
Therefore, I want to put into context what that means for workers. If we use Statistics Canada's definition of a small business as being any business with fewer than 100 employees, and the most recent employment figures by Statistics Canada, it shows that almost 6.2 million Canadian workers are employed by small businesses. That means that if one-sixth of small business owners have considered permanently closing, over one million Canadian workers are at risk.
Surely, then, considering the macro and microeconomic situation that our nation is in and the inflationary environment that workers and small business owners are facing, would my hon. colleague not agree that now is not the time to raise EI payroll taxes?
387 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-301, An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Canada Student Loans Act and the Apprentice Loans Act (interest on student loans).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, which seeks to eliminate interest on Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans.
This bill will assist Canadian students trying to obtain a post-secondary education and their families with the high cost of education. Especially during high interest rates, high inflation and soaring food costs, removing the interest on these loans will lessen their financial burden and provide students with the opportunity to obtain good-paying jobs in the future.
Anything that reduces financial barriers to education and creates a better taxpayer will reap dividends for our nation. There is no better investment for our country than Canada's youth.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 3:08:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Liberals think they can support workers and EI and still raise payroll taxes while small businesses in Canada fight to survive. The Prime Minister does not agree, or at least he did not in 2013. On June 5 of that year, the then member for Papineau asked a question on behalf of Dustin from Calgary, noting that EI premiums were to rise by $50 and that it was a “direct payroll tax increase”. The member asked why the government then was doing that to Dustin and every other working Canadian.
Does today's Prime Minister care about Dustin, or has he thrown him in the dustbin?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/23/22 12:06:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in 2021, the Liberals campaigned on the promise to eliminate interest on Canada student loans. Today, the government is poised to increase interest rates in April, adding an average of $600 to student loan payments.
Is this just another example of the government's smoke and mirrors and failure to honour its promises to Canadians, just like its inability to combat rampant inflation, high interest rates and soaring food costs?
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:22:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague listed a number of things that he says his government is doing. Who is paying for these things? It is Canadians. It is Canadians' hard-earned taxpayer dollars that are being used to fund these things.
However, I did not really hear anything beyond great, grand commitments. How does that help someone who is struggling? It is cold comfort to someone who is sitting at the table at the end of the night, wondering whether they can feed their family next week.
What I hope my hon. colleague could help me to better understand is not a rehashing of things that have already been announced but what Canadians can expect, what my constituents can count on as they struggle to pay their bills.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
