- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- Feb/29/24 5:09:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, is the member saying that Conservatives would want to change that back? If I understood her correctly, she is saying that if a family got the money, they were basically taxed on it, so they might need to give it back. In that case, would she not apply the exact same logic to the price on pollution and the carbon rebate? That is not means-tested. That is giving the exact same amount to everybody, so if her logic is correct about the universal child care benefit, she has to apply the same logic to the carbon rebate.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it certainly is relevant when I am referencing back to actual debate that took place in the House less than 10 minutes ago.
My point is that the Canada child benefit is means-tested, and people only get it when they meet certain thresholds. The program that the former Stephen Harper government had, which was basically to give everybody the exact same amount of money regardless of one's income just based on whether they had a child, was not means-tested. In fact, it was a program geared toward giving cheques to millionaires, which was exactly what happened.
I am happy to talk about this particular legislation today.
First, I just want to briefly say that it is with extreme sorrow that I learned today of the passing of Grace Eves. Grace was an incredible member of my community in Kingston and the Islands. She was extremely supportive of me throughout the years. Even in my early days of running for city council, Grace was my treasurer and helped with my campaigns. It was really hard for me to learn today, even though I had visited her in palliative care last week, that she had passed away. My deepest condolences go out to her husband, William, and to her family.
Bill C-35, and there has been criticism I have heard from Conservatives, is about entrenching this framework. I think it is important to entrench this into law because I feel that if a future government, whenever that may be, might make the decision to change course with respect to a policy like this, it is going to have to go through a legislative process in order to undo it. I think that is really important, and we have been talking about in this country for decades, talking about bringing in child care that could be a benefit to Canadians as a whole. I think those benefits are extremely important.
This is not just about investing in children, although it is extremely important to have early education and early learning opportunities for children. It is not just about empowering more people and, in particular, more women to get into the workforce, those who want to but are being held back because they are making conscious decisions about the cost of child care versus the additional income. This is also about growing our economy.
We know that a successful economy is one that is continually growing. We know that we have problems, like a lot of developed countries do, with labour shortages. This would provide an opportunity to empower people who want to get into the workforce to be able to do that, because they would not be burdened by the significant offset of child care. It would also grow our economy, and we would see economic growth through participation in the labour force, in particular, by filling those spots that quite often need to be filled.
It was brought up by a parliamentary secretary earlier that all one has to do, without even getting into the historical context of Quebec and the success it has seen, is to look at the United States, where 77% of women participate in the labour market. In Canada, that number is 86%. The parliamentary secretary said that earlier today. I think that this is already showing the results and the positive impacts of this program.
One of the concerns that have come up within the last several minutes here that I am hearing from my Conservative colleagues and, indeed a Bloc member was saying this too, is why this is important. Why do we need to do this? We already have signed deals.
We need to make this law and make this legislative, in terms of entrenching it into the laws in our country, to ensure that this is formalized. Why is that important? I think the general public should know, especially those enjoying the benefits of the child care agreements out there, that every Conservative MP who ran in the last election and, in fact, every Conservative candidate who ran in the last election, ran on getting rid of this program.
Erin O'Toole made it very clear that if he was elected, he would scrap those agreements that were made with the provinces. The current leader of the Conservatives, in the past, bragged about the fact that Conservatives got rid of child care programs that the Liberals brought forward.
It happened nearly 20 years ago, and we talked about this earlier. Ken Dryden was literally at the door with the agreements and was ready to work with provinces, but due to the unfortunate scenario where the NDP sided with the Conservatives to take down the Liberal government at the time, which resulted in a Conservative government being elected, Stephen Harper did exactly that. He got rid of those programs. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, has bragged about.
I think that Canadians are right to be concerned about the intentions of the Conservative Party, which is why entrenching this into legislation, by making this law, is so critically important. It would ensure that these agreements, this relationship and the collaboration between the federal government and the provincial governments, are sustained. If a future government decides it would like to do away with it, it would have to go through a lengthy process to do that, which would include debates in the House, votes and so on.
I do not think we have to worry about that. I do not think that the Conservatives are against it, despite their rhetoric, and they will point this out, as the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound pointed out earlier. That is good to hear. However, it is unfortunate that every time they stand up to talk about it, it as though it is one of the worst pieces of legislation that could have ever existed. This is the scenario that the Conservatives routinely find themselves in, whether it on this legislation or whether it is on scab-worker legislation. Routinely, they will speak out against something, talk very negatively about it, challenge all the work that has been done it and when it comes time to vote, they vote in favour of it.
I do not even think that Conservatives, because I think they know where the majority of Canadians are on this and how they feel about it, would ever consider touching this. Nonetheless, I would certainly feel much more confident, as I am sure my colleagues would and Canadians would, to know that this would be entrenched in legislation. That is why this measure is important.
When the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asks the question, or when the member from the Bloc asks why we are even talking about this when we have these agreements in place, that is the reason. We need to do this to ensure that there is longevity to this and that, in order to dismantle this program, it would require a number of steps in the future.
If we want to look at the success of this program, and I have said this many times here, all we need to do is to look to the Quebec model, which happened several decades ago. I have stood up in the House many times as a proud Ontario member of Parliament, whether it is on this issue, on the environment or on other socially progressive issues, Quebec certainly led the way. We can learn from what Quebec did a number of decades ago with child care. We can see the results. We see that, in Quebec, more women are in the workforce. We knew we would be successful in encouraging more people to get into the workforce if we brought forward these agreements and worked with provinces in this manner. We can learn a lot, and indeed we did learn a lot.
It is important to recognize that there are always growing pains with new programs. I listened to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound speak about how Quebec got it right. I am curious to know, if he went back and looked at its implementation several decades ago, if it was as squeaky clean and worked as effectively from day one as he suggests. I think that maybe it was not that great when it was rolled out because there are growing pains to these learning processes.
I understand if the Conservative angle right now is to try to highlight these growing pains as the challenges that would end the entire program. However, I have a lot more faith in our ability to deliver on this and a lot more faith in Canadians' abilities to ensure that this program lasts in perpetuity because of what we have seen in Quebec and because we have seen the success in Quebec, notwithstanding the fact that it may have had growing pains as well in the beginning. I find that so critical to look at the success of Quebec and other jurisdictions throughout the world that have taken on similar challenges.
I go back to a point I made earlier, specifically with respect to $10-a-day child care and the issue of whether child care should be means tested, as was suggested by Conservatives. We have a program in place to means-test, in terms of helping families to raise their children, and that is the Canada child benefit. That is a payment program to families with children, which is based on income. I do not receive it, and the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound does not receive it, as he indicated, nor would we if we tried to apply. It is something that we would just not get, given our level of income.
However, it is important that rather than the Conservative plan of the universal child care benefit, which just gave the same amount to every single family based on the number of children, this is a program that means-tests. The lower the income, the more a family would get from society, through the government, to help raise their children. As a Liberal, we see a value in that and in society playing a role in helping to raise children. We see a benefit to collectively coming together to make that happen and, in particular, to support those who need it the most. That is where the means testing part comes in, with respect to the Canada child benefit.
This particular program and $10-a-day child care is about making a universal standard across the entire country that absolutely everybody could benefit from. I started in my speech and will perhaps conclude with this, it is not just about providing child care for children and not just about making things cheaper. This is about providing opportunities. As has been demonstrated through Quebec, and as we can see already in Canada when compared to the United States, this is about empowering more women to get into the workforce, which is exactly what we are seeing as a result of this.
Most importantly, from my perspective, it is about growing our economy and helping to fill some gaps that exist within the labour force and the shortage of labour that we might have in this country. I am really excited to see that this has finally come to fruition. I accept the amendment that has been put forward by the Senate. I think we should pass this. This is a bill that would do great things for Canadians, just like the pharmacare bill that was introduced today.
I want to take the opportunity, as I have done before, to thank my colleagues in the NDP for working collectively and constructively on behalf of Canadians to provide programs that would genuinely impact and change the lives of Canadians. It is so incredibly important.
I would be the first to say that, because of the NDP, we have really been pushed forward in terms of our social and progressive agendas. Its members should take a lot of the credit for this, as I know they like to do and are doing. They deserve credit for being among the adults working in this room on behalf of Canadians.
2058 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 4:43:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we find very ironic now is that Conservatives are suddenly saying 77% of people do not need this. They are asking why we are providing it. Our point is that is what the difference between the Canada child benefit and the former Stephen Harper universal child care benefit is all about. It is about means-testing.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 4:42:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is clear that the member did not understand the question from the member for Winnipeg South Centre; nor did he understand the follow-up question from the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He said he would not take the CCB. What he is not understanding is that he is not eligible for it, because it is means-tested. He would not have the option to take it even if he wanted it.
What we were trying to do is point out how that is hypocritical with respect to Stephen Harper's plan. The universal child care benefit gave cheques in the same amount to everyone. Millionaires got cheques. What we find very ironic now is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I guess I am not surprised that Conservatives are against freeing up important money that students are going to be seeing as a result of not paying interest payments if the fall economic statement is adopted. However, I am surprised at the willingness and candour with which Conservatives are willing to say they are not in favour of that.
The member talked specifically about how those who are currently students are the ones who are going to see the economic benefit of going to post-secondary school. Has he thought about comparing the economic benefit of when my parents and his parents went to secondary school? Thirty or forty years ago, all someone had to do was go to secondary school and they were pretty much assured of getting a decent job that would enable them to provide for themselves and their family. They would have a good kick at the can, so to speak.
We now have a situation in which secondary school is not enough. Most people need post-secondary to come close to getting the same quality of employment that my parents and the member's parents were able to get a few decades ago.
Can he reflect on the fact that as there is more demand for people to go to post-secondary, the government should perhaps start playing a role in helping provide that education?
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 11:14:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member brought up an excellent point which, quite frankly, I had not even thought of until she said it. Not only does this motion call on Galen Weston to not pay GST on his home heating, but for those who live in an apartment where one's heating is included in the rent, they are not benefiting from this either. It is an excellent point.
The NDP members are going to have to come to terms with the fact that when they crafted this motion, it was not well thought out. I understand what their intentions were, but the way they crafted this motion just did not work. They would be much better off calling on the government to bring in programs to support lower-income Canadians, not to support Galen Weston, but to support people who could genuinely benefit from this.
I really think that this motion needs a do-over.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform us as to how she sees this trade agreement being so important, given what has happened in Ukraine over the last year and a half. Once Ukraine ultimately wins this war, which we know it will, why will this be such an important trade agreement, not just for the benefit of Canada but indeed to help our ally, Ukraine?
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that could not be further from the truth, because the reality is that the universal child care benefit that the Conservatives brought in gave cheques to millionaires. He talks about a one-size-fits-all approach. Nothing more clearly defines that than the universal child care benefit that literally gave the exact same amount of money to absolutely everybody, even those making half a million dollars a year. Of course, a Conservative would think that is a great program, because they are giving—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Kitchener Centre for his advocacy on behalf of Canadians with disabilities.
Furthermore, I would like to thank him for his excellent work in getting Bill C-22 through committee and improving that bill along the way. My thanks again for his tremendous advocacy and great teamwork.
I want to especially acknowledge the advocacy and work of the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. The minister has been working tirelessly throughout her career to promote the rights of persons with disabilities.
The minister understands the challenges that so many persons with disabilities face each and every day. She understands that many working-age persons with disabilities face a challenging income gap. That is why she has been working tirelessly to create a groundbreaking Canada disability benefit, which the member referenced, an income supplement with the potential to seriously reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities.
Like my colleague, the minister wants to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible. I remind the hon. member that, as set out in the legislation, details of the Canada disability benefit will be addressed in further regulations including the benefit amount, eligible criteria and other features. We will work out all of these details in consultation with our partners, including the disability community. We will continue to work closely with the provinces and territories to ensure that the Canada disability benefit will align with and complement services, benefits and supports. I am pleased to report that conversations in this regard are going very well. There is a shared commitment to improving the lives of persons with disabilities across this country.
The Canada disability benefit has the potential to make a profound difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities. For that to happen we need to take the time to do things the right way. That is exactly what we are doing.
344 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River raises the very important issue of dignity and I wholeheartedly agree with much of what she said. Seniors do deserve a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. They deserve to live knowing that they have the means to pay for their housing, food and medications, to name a few. With food costs and rental costs soaring, it is hard for people to put their financial cares aside.
This is the reason why our government increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors over the age of 75. As seniors age, they tend to have lower income and are often facing higher health-related expenses because of the onset of illness or disability. Now, thanks to the increase to the OAS, we are strengthening the financial security of 3.3 million Canadian seniors.
Because higher prices on essential goods are causing undue stress, we passed Bill C-46, the one-time grocery rebate, which will deliver targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians who need it the most, providing eligible seniors with an extra $234, on average.
Our new dental benefit, as the member mentioned, will help seniors get the dental care they need. That is why, in budget 2023, we proposed to provide $13 billion over five years and $4.4 billion ongoing to help nine million Canadians, including seniors, receive the dental care they need.
These new measures build on the supports that our government has already provided to seniors in the form of program changes, tax breaks and top-ups. Since 2015, we have made significant progress for seniors. To begin, we increased the GIS for nearly a million low-income single seniors. We then restored the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 for GIS and OAS pensions, which the Conservatives had planned to increase this year, if they were still in power.
We enhanced the Canada pension plan, and we reduced income taxes through increases to the basic personal amount. Finally, budget 2022 committed a top-up of $500 to the Canada housing benefit to help low-income renters, including seniors, with the cost of renting, and a one-time doubling of the GST credit for six months.
We are committed to making life more affordable for Canadians, and our government has the record to prove it.
396 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 12:31:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if I left anything to wonder, a lot of what I was talking about was Alberta. I would not say it was about Alberta exclusively, but indeed Alberta and the fossil fuels sector have supported this country for a very long time. Although I am very much in favour of moving away from fossil fuels, I am not here to say I would turn my back on those who have helped this country for so long. Indeed, I agree with the recommendation that specifically talks about helping the transition so Alberta and those other affected regions can see new opportunities and benefit from those new opportunities.
With respect to his question, I cannot support the amendment because the amendment says that we delete everything else beforehand, but do I support the idea of the blue seal program? It is a great program. I must admit I did not hear the entire amendment and do not have a copy of it, but if it is what I understand it to be, there are a lot of individuals with skills in this country who need to be accredited. We need people working in this country, and we need to do everything we can to ensure those who have the skills to the standards of Canada have the opportunities to participate in those workforces.
223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I could be wrong, so I stand to be corrected, but I believe I heard the member say that we replaced or continued on the universal child benefit with the Canada child benefit and we basically just copied what the Conservatives had and continued on with the same thing. If that is what she said, it could not be further from the truth. The universal child benefit was universal. Everybody got it. Millionaires got it. Everybody got the exact same amount. That was the former Conservative plan. Our plan, what we brought in, the Canada child benefit, gave more to those who needed it. It was means-tested. That is the fundamental difference between the two.
Can the member confirm whether I heard that correctly? If I did not, how is she able to make that claim given the huge discrepancy between the two programs?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have heard the member mention a few times now that there is no need for this dental program because it already exists out there, at least in Ontario, the province both of us are from.
However, the healthy smiles program, the one he talked specifically about, is for children whose parents are on Ontario Works, whose parents are on ODSP, or who are receiving disability benefits. This is not about providing a baseline dental program for all children in families with an income of under $90,000.
Would the member at least recognize that what he is continually referencing with the healthy smiles program in Ontario is nothing like what is being proposed in this legislation?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that question goes back to the other three questions that I have been asked. The questions have all been about timing, amounts and determining all of this stuff in advance right now, but the “nothing without us” concept is all about ensuring that these decisions are made with the disability community and ensuring that, when we talk about how much the payment will be and the criteria for receiving it, it is not a top-down approach but an approach that works with individuals with disabilities.
I personally believe that the new benefit needs to be done in consultation with persons with disabilities. That is why I support this particular framework that we have in front of us.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want nothing more, as does the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, than to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible.
We understand that people have concerns about the timing of the benefit. In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we have been working tirelessly alongside the disability community, as well as the provinces and territories, to ensure that every person who receives the Canada disability benefit would be better off because of it.
Let us be clear. We need the disability community's input at every step of the design of the benefit, as I am sure the member would agree. We also need to work with provinces and territories to ensure that there are no clawbacks to other benefits that already exist, as has come up in debate in this House regarding Bill C-22.
Bill C-22 is, as the member indicated, groundbreaking framework legislation. If it becomes law, we would establish regulations that define the benefit amounts, eligibility criteria and other details. Parliament would have the opportunity to review it three years after it comes into effect. I would note that this time frame is actually shorter than the usual parliamentary review. That is because we are committed to ensuring that the Canada disability benefit meets the needs of working-age persons with disabilities.
Just last summer, with funding provided through budget 2021, we launched extensive consultations with the disability community and with national indigenous organizations, as well as with provincial and territorial governments, to seek their input on their experiences and needs.
It is important to understand the Canada disability benefit is part of a continuum of bold, historic actions that our government has taken to advance accessibility and the rights of persons with disabilities. These actions include the Accessible Canada Act, the Canada poverty reduction strategy and the development of the first-ever disability inclusion action plan. Of course the key component to our action plan is the Canada disability benefit, which would help reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities.
If passed, Bill C-22 would establish guiding principles and objectives for the new benefit. It would also allow the Governor in Council to implement the benefit's design components through regulation. The sooner Bill C-22 passes, the sooner the Canada disability benefit could be implemented. That means we would be able to help the people who need it the most. We know persons with disabilities have been waiting a long time for this. That is why we are working as quickly and efficiently as possible to deliver this historic benefit.
I would also indicate to the member that I know she asked a question specifically about an amendment. She is asking if the government would work with the NDP, or if the Liberal members would work with the NDP, in committee to make these amendments. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to pre-empt the work that those members would do. I look forward to seeing the report that this member and all members of the committee will bring to the House. I am sure that if what she is recommending makes sense and is a good proposal, it would be taken very seriously by the members of the Liberal Party who sit on that committee.
566 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled to hear Conservative members talking about programs that are tested based on need. That is a great step in the right direction, and certainly a move away from the model of the universal child care benefit.
Perhaps I did not quite understand the member clearly when he referred to families that are making $308,000. My wife and I combined are making that, and we do not get the money back that he is talking about. I do not know where he is getting that number. Maybe he could help me with that.
Quite frankly, I do not believe that people who are in my position need to get that money. I am not looking for it. I also believe that most people who are in my position would agree that when we get to a certain level of financial stability, there is not the need to rely on these payments. Instead, we could better direct them to those who genuinely need them and provide more to those who genuinely need them, and that is exactly what the Canada child benefit did. It looked at how much individuals made and gave money to individuals to help with their children, based on how much they made. Once they hit a certain threshold, they no longer got it.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:23:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is what they can count on.
They can count on the Canada workers benefit, a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75 and a $500 additional payment this year to nearly one million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. Families across the country can rely on lower child care fees. They can rely on the fact that there will be indexation to inflation for the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
I regret that the member seems to think that these policies are being rehashed and re-laid out and that he does not see the tangible benefits these policies have for Canadians. I am sure that if he goes back and talks to Canadians who are receiving these benefits and explains to them how the changes will further impact their lives, they would see the benefit of them.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:54:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I take exception to the fact that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan would suggest that I do not appreciate, value or see the benefit of various members' input in this House. As a matter of fact, if he listened to my speech, I actually gave credit to the Conservatives for helping to make the wage subsidy program better. I am totally and absolutely willing to do that when I see it coming from across the way. They made that particular program better as a result of their interventions.
My issue was with respect to the fact that the member for Abbotsford was somehow very critical of this particular program, but at the same time, he knows full well that he helped pass that through unanimous consent and had input into those programs at the time.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
