- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Kelowna—Lake Country
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,412.70
- Government Page
- May/27/24 11:28:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can speak to many of the countries around the world that have asked for Canadian energy and have been turned down by the Prime Minister. Most recently, there have been Germany, Poland, Japan, Greece and others as well. These really are lost opportunities. We know that five or six years ago the United States was barely exporting LNG, and now it is one of the largest exporters of LNG in the world. Really, this is a lost opportunity for Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers.
I am wondering if the member can speak to that.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 1:31:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Liberal government House leader on how the Liberals believe that they are so righteous, yet they continue to vote against common-sense bills and common-sense motions. One example was the private member's bill, the end the revolving door act, which is aimed at getting mental health supports, and addiction treatment and recovery. It was actually something the Bloc voted for, yet most of the Liberals and NDP voted against.
When the Liberals talk about being so righteous and wanting to vote for good legislation, there are so many examples where, in fact, they do not. The member spoke about how the NDP members continually rise in this place and outside of this place, speaking against the government, yet the NDP members continue to support it.
Can the member comment on how what the government is saying is the opposite of what it is doing? It is being supported by the NDP members, who continue to support it regardless of what it does.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Liberals have chosen to not continue speaking to this, so I am very proud to rise to speak on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. I will be splitting my time with the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.
Amendments were brought forward from the Senate on Bill C-35, on child care, which is why we are here today. I would like to recognize the member for Peterborough—Kawartha and her team for all of their work on this bill, as well as for reaching out to parents and child care providers across the country. I would also like to recognize our Conservative members on the human resources committee. They brought forth common-sense amendments on this bill that were not accepted by the NDP-Liberal coalition. I will speak to that shortly.
Child care is an issue of great importance to many families in my community and the operators who run these centres, as they are taking care of our most important asset, our children. I want to thank them for the vital and important work that they do. As a working mom, I can say that child care was very important to me and our family. That was back when maternity leave was only six months.
I have unfortunately heard from many residents of Kelowna—Lake Country about the shortage of day care spaces, as well as the unaffordability of child care. I have also heard from operators, often young female entrepreneurs, of the challenges they are facing as well. If not resolved, these challenges may put them out of business for good, leaving families struggling to find a child care space that does not exist.
As the Conservative vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I am very familiar with Bill C-35, as it came before Conservative colleagues and me at that committee. We have to remember that this legislation is coming after agreements were already signed and implemented with the provinces.
Conservatives have also offered several other amendments at the committee stage to correct serious failures in this legislation. These are faults that have been apparent from the beginning of this NDP-Liberal government's approach to child care. Sadly, those amendments were voted down, and as a result, we are now seeing many of the consequences of their approach.
Parents are now facing wait-lists that have not gotten better. Child care centres are being forced to close their doors forever. The wealthy are getting access to $10-a-day child care spaces. The Liberal child care plan had no means testing. In fact, it does not even tie to whether the parent who is looking to access the $10-a-day child care even works or wants to work.
Let us look at the numbers. A Fraser Institute report, published just this month, showed that 77% of high-income parents access child care compared to 41% of low-income families. It should also be common sense that a high-income household does not need the government subsidy to access the same level to child care that a single working mother would need.
Accessible child care should be available to all working women, but many people are questioning how these government programs are good for working women and the families that need access to affordable child care. Despite the claims from the Liberals that their child care plans would allow more women to be in our workforce, that same Fraser Institute study found that labour force participation for women in September 2023 has dropped when compared to participation in September of 2015. This report also said, “There is also little evidence that the federal government is achieving its [second] goal of boosting the labour force participation of women with children.”
After eight years of high taxes, high inflation, high interest rates and more debt, we can add fewer women with children working to the NDP-Liberal government's list of accomplishments. Young women have also suffered. The Liberal's most recent labour force survey, published in January of 2024, showed that over the last year, the employment of young women has cumulatively declined by 4.2%. Outside of the pandemic, that is the lowest it has been since the year 2000, which was, interestingly, under the last Liberal government.
The young female entrepreneurs in the child care sector have been left behind. These are operators who are often working extended hours and days compared to the many large not-for-profit operators. Even if they are fully licensed from the provincial government, they operate within and follow all provincial regulations. The so-called feminist Liberals have not made them a priority to access the federal funding to bring down costs to the parents they serve. It is right in the Liberal legislation.
We have quickly discovered that these female entrepreneurs are not a priority in the NDP-Liberal government's child care plan. What they envisioned was that they could build something for themselves, a child care program that could be flexible for nighttime or weekend workers, better available to rural working families and cater exclusively to children with special needs. These are exactly the types of choices parents are asking for.
Ottawa has a role in helping build out child care in Canada, but it cannot do that if it only looks to work against the headwinds of what the real demands are and local situations are of working families.
The NDP-Liberal agreements have been opposed to the kinds of child care that often allow more flexibility, such as what women entrepreneurs provide. They may provide different availability and attainability to preferred government-run or not-for-profit centres. If these operations have challenges to staying open, the numbers of child care spaces will actually decline.
This is not the fault of any child care worker or any organization in the child care sector, whether it be private, public or not-for-profit. It is the fault of a badly designed government program.
I recently met with a well-run, not-for-profit child care centre in my community. This experienced operator was equally frustrated with the system. She talked about the bureaucracy that has been created that is making it very difficult for both her organization and parents to wade through.
The fact is that, since the Liberal government started its child care program, we have seen fewer children in child care in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, the number of children under the age of five in child care fell by 118,000 between 2019 and 2023, which is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. Statistics Canada also showed that 26% of parents of children under the age of five who were not using child care reported that their child was on a wait-list, which is 7% higher than it was in 2022. As well, 47% of infants younger than one year not in child care were on a wait-list, which is an increase of 38% compared to early 2022.
The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC said that there were 130,000 licensed child care spaces in the province and that 75% of children aged zero to 12 are not able to access them.
A common-sense Conservative government would bring common sense back to child care policy. Only Conservatives would fight for equal access to child care and choice for parents. We support all forms of child care, and this is something we tried to put in through amendments at the committee stage with this legislation, whether it be for traditional day care centres; centres with extended, part-time or overnight care; nurseries; flexible and drop-in care; before- and after-school care; preschools; co-op child care; faith-based care; unique programming to support children with disabilities; home-based child care; nannies and shared nannies; au pairs; stay-at-home parents; guardians who raise their own children or family members; or friends or neighbours who provide care.
The NDP-Liberal government has only brought costs, crime and crisis to families. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, housing prices have doubled, food bank usage is at its highest, violent crime is up 32% and inflation is creating financial anxiety. There are 22 people dying each day by the opioid crisis, and our health care system is in shambles.
On top of this, in B.C., with the federal Liberals supporting B.C. drug policies, people taking their children to parks have to deal with open drug use. I spoke with a child care provider recently who told me that they often walk the kids to a local park to play, and though they scan the park before the children play, they are often terrified that they may have missed something because they often find drug paraphernalia.
I do have quite a number of articles from over the last month. I will just reference a couple because I know I am running out of time. First of all, Castanet said that the Kelowna child care crisis is being “amplified” and “not helped by government fee program.” Another headline reads “Edmonton daycares closed” due to protest. Another reads, “Child-care costs are dropping across Canada. But some families are still waiting years for spaces.” These headlines goes on on, and these are headlines from just over the last month.
Conservatives will honour the existing provincial child care agreements. However, we will work toward fixing what the government has broken, so parents will have the choice and flexibility that the NDP-Liberal costly coalition has not allowed.
1636 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 12:34:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is the government that sets the agenda and what is on the docket for the day. It is actually the government that decides what we are discussing every day. It is an honour for me to be here to speak on behalf of my community on a very important piece of legislation.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.
Today, I rise to speak to the government's legislation, Bill C-52, enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act. The bill was initially introduced by the former minister of transport. Bill C-52 has far-reaching implications for Canada's transportation system, and as the official opposition, it is our duty to ensure it will truly meet the serious and ongoing concerns many Canadians have within the transportation sector.
The bill proposes to set publicly reported service standards for private sector companies and government agencies responsible for air travel at Canada's airports almost exclusively through regulations, which would be created by the minister and the cabinet.
Furthermore, it proposes to require airport authorities to formalize noise consultation processes and environmental standards, and to publish information on their directors and senior management. Finally, Bill C-52 aims to amend the Canada Marine Act regarding the setting of fees by Canadian port authorities.
First and foremost, the timing of the bill's introduction raises concerns. Bill C-52 was presented on June 20, just one day before the House recessed for the summer. That raises questions about the government's motivations and intentions. It is essential to consider whether the timing was chosen to deflect attention from previous travel-related crises and to create an impression of swift action.
Between the summers of 2022 and 2023, Canadian travellers faced a disastrous travel season with numerous flight cancellations and unacceptable delays. Previous to that was the disastrous mismanagement of passports that affected travellers, but that is a whole other issue. In particular, the Christmas travel season last year brought further chaos and frustration in airports. Those events highlighted the need for significant improvements in our transportation system.
However, the Liberals are focusing on announcements and consultations rather than delivering tangible results for Canadian travellers. What is their solution? It is to empower themselves further.
One of the most pressing issues within our transportation system is the backlog of complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency, the CTA. This backlog has grown by 3,000 complaints per month and has resulted in a staggering 60,000 complaints now waiting to be adjudicated.
That backlog represents thousands of Canadian passengers who had their travel experiences disrupted or delayed, or had some form of service situation, and all those people are awaiting resolutions. Those passengers have been unable to resolve their compensation claims with airlines, and they have now been asked to wait over 18 months to have their complaints considered by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
This adds insult to injury and prolongs what could be serious problems. People are out-of-pocket, and airlines are not being held accountable for mismanagement and poor service.
Most recently, we heard damning reports of Air Canada's and WestJet's treatment of passengers with disabilities. For Air Canada, in one case in May, two employees, instead of being trained on the proper equipment, attempted to physically lift a passenger but ended up dropping him. In another report, a woman's ventilator was disconnected and a lift fell on her head. A man was forced to physically drag himself off a flight in Vancouver. Air Canada admitted it had violated federal accessibility regulations.
We heard that those passengers got notice, forgiveness and, hopefully, amends to which they are entitled, and Air Canada said it would be looking to ensure proper compliance. I am looking forward to ensuring that Air Canada's CEO will be appearing before the human resources committee I serve on, as we have called for him to testify and to explain to Canadians exactly how this airline intends to comply.
The latest example was from WestJet where a paralympian was forced to lift herself up the stairs to the plane. It was reported that she commented that she was frustrated and humiliated, and there was a ramp within 50 metres.
All those situations are disturbing, disappointing and unacceptable for persons with disabilities to have gone through. Unfortunately, Bill C-52, which we are debating here today, does not provide solutions to eliminate the complaints backlog or set specific service standards within accountability mechanisms.
Federally regulated entities involved in air travel must also be held accountable for delays or cancellations. They include airlines, airports, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, Nav Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. However, this legislation falls short of those expectations.
While the bill addresses some aspects of accountability and transparency, it fails to hold all relevant entities responsible for ensuring smooth and reliable air travel. A comprehensive approach to accountability should encompass all stakeholders involved in the travel experience. One of the significant concerns with Bill C-52 is the concentration of power in the hands of the minister and the cabinet to develop regulations in the future.
While regulatory flexibility can be useful, this bill does not include concrete improvements in legislation. We see this often with the Liberal government, where so much is left to regulation, which leads to uncertainty and lack of transparency. We saw this with the Internet censorship bill, Bill C-11, and with the disability benefits bill. Instead, this legislation relies on promises of future regulations, which raise concerns about vagueness and the potential for arbitrary decision-making. It is not even a band-aid. It is an IOU for a band-aid.
In a matter as critical as transportation where there is essential service provided, and the comfort and convenience of the Canadian people are at stake, it is crucial that regulations are well defined and not left to the discretion of the government and the minister of the day. The lack of this clear direction with specific remedies in this bill to address the long-standing problems in our transportation system is a significant shortcoming. While the bill aspires to enhance transparency and accountability in the transportation system, it fails to deliver. It fails to provide the concrete solutions to the issues that have been plaguing the system for years. As for the results and who will be held accountable, there are no answers in this legislation.
We need legislation that not only identifies problems but also provides tangible solutions. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that any legislation passed is effective and beneficial to the Canadian people. Bill C-52, as it stands, is lacking.
1077 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say in reference to the individuals who lost their lives that my heart certainly goes out to their families. I cannot imagine what the families have been through.
What we are talking about here today is this piece of legislation and there are a lot of misses by this legislation. We are talking about Bill C-33. Certainly, in my intervention I mentioned a few times that this legislation should have been about safety and economic stability. Instead, this legislation is about corporate governance and control by the government to insert itself at the board table of port authorities. That is really one of the biggest focuses of this piece of legislation.
There is a real miss here with where this legislation could have gone and that is really unfortunate.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, and we supported that at committee. In addition to that, as I mentioned during my intervention, we put forth a motion that would have captured all different types of child care providers, but unfortunately that was not accepted. Part of that did include different cultural and indigenous-type providers, but unfortunately our motion was not accepted by the other members of the committee.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 5:27:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague went into a lot of his personal story as part of him coming to this place. Can he just touch a bit more on the importance of considering what he has in this legislation on top of all disabilities? As he said, his wording is very focused. What will this mean to people not only here but around the world as we spend money on education?
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 5:15:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a lot of what I was talking about earlier had to do with services over the last several years, where we saw an immigration backlog of over a million people, veterans waiting four years for disability insurance, and of course the whole passport fiasco.
All of that has existed over the last so many years, and this is at a time when the government has increased the bureaucracy, doubled the cost of the bureaucracy, and spent billions of dollars on consultants, yet we have fewer services.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 5:14:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the whole air transport system is a colossal mess, and when we look at what has happened, we see it is because of the government. We have seen lineups at airports beyond compare. We have seen that people are unable to get their passports, and the minister responsible for passports is now saying that people should not even bother applying.
Everything the government touches is a mess and is broken. When it takes anything on, it has shown it really cannot govern and cannot operate. Anything it touches, it seems to break.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, we agree that we absolutely need to get supports. At the committee level, we worked really hard with all committee members to make sure that we moved this legislation forward with some meaningful amendments. However, the government made it very clear that pretty much everything would be determined in regulations, so that is where it is.
That being said, we were supportive at committee with moving forward and making some amendments, which we did, and we worked with everyone. Talking about clawbacks, they are definitely a concern. This is an issue that the current government has not been able to determine, even though it has had eight years to come to the point where we are tonight.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 10:42:39 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, victims have to be at the core of what we consider when we are looking at legislation. A good example of that is Bill C-5 and how the government is removing minimum sentences from very serious crimes. That puts these individuals who have committed these crimes right back into their communities and right back into where the victims are.
That was one of the main reasons why we did not support that piece of legislation. We were looking out for the victims and caring for the victims.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 4:28:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as of today and tomorrow, we still have vehicles that are transporting food to grocery stores. We still have vehicles that are going across this country transporting all the goods we buy every day when we go out to all of the stores. That is the reality we have right now. People use their vehicles to take their kids to school and to all the sports, recreation and arts they do. Those are the vehicles they are using today. It is really unrealistic to say people cannot go anywhere, go to work or go to the grocery store. The cost of everything they are buying just keeps going up. It is unrealistic and it is out of touch.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 11:47:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a local senior from Kelowna—Lake Country, who does not have a computer, booked an appointment at the Service Canada passport office in Kelowna. He was turned away because he did not bring in forms he was told were available online only, and staff there could not print them. Our fabulous constituency team was pleased to serve him and printed off the forms he needed at my office.
How can Service Canada offices not have forms or the capability to print off forms at their office? This is a failure of the government. When is the minister going to put the “serve” back into Service Canada?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 10:07:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I was not referring to importation. I was referring to being across the country. What the minister is referring to is actually mussels that were coming in through aquariums, which CBSA caught, and I am referring to across Canada.
The fisheries department refers to deleterious substances to be used to eradicate aquatic invasive mussels. Is this the best way to eradicate aquatic invasive mussels?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 2:39:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, “we are working on it” just simply does not cut it. The expected jump in travel should have been foreseen. People have lost confidence in travelling to and in Canada. Other countries are dealing with it just fine. In Canada, the union representing many airport workers stated that airport delays are here to stay for the long term. Small businesses have faced a death by a thousand cuts, thanks to the Liberals. These long-term airport delays and ongoing mandates will further squeeze them.
When will the small business minister defend against the transport minister's unfair and extreme made-in-Canada travel delays?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/5/22 3:05:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine from Kelowna—Lake Country did the right thing. She applied for a passport renewal in person at a passport office and was told by Service Canada staff that doing so two months before travelling was plenty of time. The passports never arrived and she will likely have to cancel her family trip at great cost and disappointment.
Service Canada told MPs that it expects lengthy passport delays. This is another mess from the government.
When will the minister provide clarity to my constituent and Canadians on passport processing?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
