- 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
- Apr/18/24 1:44:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the Minister of Justice.
Budget 2024 involves a number of programs. I do not have a lot of time today, so I want to focus my remarks on one particular program, and then provide some comments on some stuff I heard earlier today in this debate.
I would first like to applaud the government on the introduction of a national school food program. Canada is the only G7 country that does not have a national school food program. I know that, in many parts of our country, different organizations like the Food Sharing Project in Kingston, in my riding, has been collaborating over the years with volunteers and donations in order to put food in schools so that children can have a healthy start and can have food in their stomachs when they start the day, and throughout the day, when they are at school.
I had the opportunity, not that long ago, to go with my family to help the Food Sharing Project pack, organize and prepare food to be sent out to schools. I really was impressed when my seven-year-old son looked at me and acknowledged that this was where the food came from. It dawned on me in that moment that, as far as children are concerned, when they are in school and accessing this food, there is no stereotyping as to who is receiving it. Whether they are less well off or more well off, everybody has access to the same food. It helps to break down the stereotyping that exist around who needs food because their parents cannot afford everything they need, and it gives kids a start in life where everybody is on an equal playing field.
Therefore, I am very glad to see $1 billion committed over the next five years to a national school food program because it is more than just giving food to particularly vulnerable Canadians and vulnerable children; it breaks down the stereotyping that exist among the haves and the have-nots, so I am happy to see that the government has responded to the calls to action within our communities to provide this.
I have had the opportunity to present many petitions over the last several months. Each school community in my riding put together a petition, which I have presented at various times over the last several months to the House. I want to thank them for that incredible work. By doing that and by responding to that need, these school communities in my riding can see that their voices have been heard. They called on the government to do something so urgently, and it responded. I am very proud to be part of a government that is introducing this national school food program.
The other thing I want to talk about today is misinformation and some disinformation. In particular, I want to go back to an exchange that happened earlier today between the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Winnipeg North, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
After the introductory speech, where the member for Carleton went on for hours, I believe, because the first speaker has the opportunity to do that, the first question he received from the parliamentary secretary was about how many affordable homes he had built. The parliamentary secretary was gracious enough to allow the Leader of the Opposition to know that he had built a total number of six homes.
What I find really interesting about this is the response from the Leader of the Opposition. This will demonstrate the master manipulator of information that he is, which the parliamentary secretary pointed out at the time. This is what happened. In response to that question, the Leader of the Opposition got up and basically chastised the member for Winnipeg North for spreading disinformation that he got off a Twitter account. I hope those who are listening in the gallery and at home will listen to the specific word he used. He said, “If you want to know...how many affordable homes were built when I was...minister, we completed 92,782 apartments”. That is exactly what he said. The member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary, stood up on a point of order and said that the Leader of the Opposition was intentionally—
737 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 5:12:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not misinformation and disinformation. The Conservatives ran on getting rid of the child care program. The Leader of the Opposition has bragged about the fact that they got rid of these programs in the past, but why should Canadians not be skeptical of it, when the Conservatives also ran on a price on pollution and now are suddenly against it?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 5:10:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if he does not know, it is because he is probably confused by the fact that the Conservatives are always doing that on so many issues. They did it on scab legislation. They were extremely critical of that, but then when it came time to vote for it, just quietly they all stood up in favour. We were actually really surprised.
It is the exact same thing with this particular piece of legislation. We hear the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who keeps standing up and criticizing the government, routinely hammering away at the fact that this is a horrible program. Every Conservative who gets up does the exact same thing, but then when it comes time to vote, they vote in favour of it.
I will just recap that. They ran on a platform to get rid of the child care program. The Conservative leader has bragged about the fact that they have killed child care agreements in the past, and then the Conservatives get in here and are extremely critical about it, which would all lead to suggest they are against it. Then at the last moment, they vote in favour of it.
I think Canadians can reflect on that and understand and appreciate what the Conservatives would actually do if they were in government.
219 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 4:46:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to circle back on my intervention with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I still do not think that he quite gets it, because, in truth, he said even if he could, he would not apply for it. The point is that people do not apply for it. When they fill out their income tax, one of the spouses or one of the parents is going to declare the dependence of children. Then, based on the income, a certain amount will be given based on that means-testing.
It is not a program that a person can opt in to or opt out of. It is a program that is about making sure that those who need it get it, and those who do not need it do not get it. What we were trying to say in our exchanges earlier from this side was that this was—
157 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/5/24 3:55:30 p.m.
- Watch
The petitioners specifically reference data that says that one in four children in Canada lives in food-insecure households, that Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program, and that school food programs are recognized around the world as essential to the health, well-being and education of students. Over 388 million children in at least 161 countries receive free or subsidized meals at school.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 10:20:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, both on the same subject. One is signed by members of the North Addington Education Centre in Kingston, and the other is signed by the St. Marguerite Bourgeoys Catholic School community.
These petitioners are calling on the federal government to implement a national school food program through budget 2024 for implementation in the fall of 2024. They bring to the government's attention Statistics Canada data from 2022 indicating that one in four children in Canada lives in a food-insecure household. They also draw to the government's attention that Canada is the only G7 country without a school food program.
Finally, they draw to the government's attention that there are 388 million children throughout the world in developed countries who benefit from such a food program, yet we do not have one in Canada.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know if I am changing or the member for Winnipeg Centre is, but this is second time this week I completely agree with everything she has said.
I genuinely appreciate her comments today, in particular about a basic income, but also about, more generally speaking, the food sharing program we absolutely need to bring into our schools throughout the country.
I want to congratulate the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing this very important bill. Once again, we see Quebec, which has had this legislation in place for decades now, has led the way, like it quite often does on other issues socially, or the environment, for example.
This is critically important. It is important that our children, who are in the age of developing and whose minds are still developing, are not subject to a bombardment of detrimental and unhealthy choices at such a young age. I have two children under the age of 13, and I think of how easily they are influenced by what they are seeing. The forms of media have changed so much since I was a child. Nowadays children are watching much more YouTube and more custom and tailored shows. We are seeing these advertisements come across in a way I certainly was not exposed to. When I was younger, we would sit in front of a TV on Saturday morning to watch cartoons. These ads would pop up, and our parents could be kind of looking our shoulder to see what we were watching. It is much more difficult now.
I also completely agree with the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre about this being a preventative step. This is about helping to prepare children so they can have the best shot at life in terms of health.
I am going to keep my comments very short. It is very refreshing to see the entire chamber support this initiative. The only thing I wish I could ask is that this be extended to grandparents too, because my mother, my children's grandmother, quite often purchases unhealthy stuff. Maybe that will be tackled at a later time.
Congratulations to the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for bringing this forward. This is a very important initiative, and I look forward to it making its way over to the Senate next and becoming law so we can move forward on this very important initiative.
413 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 3:55:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was teasing the member earlier. I always have a good exchange with him and I appreciate his question.
The reality of the situation is that I understand there is an affordability crisis out there. I understand that a lot of people are struggling. However, yesterday I got an email from my son's school that told us that kids would not be going outside for recess yesterday as a result of the smoke in the air. He is in grade 1. I do not ever remember that happening when I was a child. I do not want my children to grow up in a world where we have many days like what we had over the last couple of days.
Yes, the member is right. There are a lot of people struggling with affordability in particular right now, but we also have to do something about protecting our environment. This comes down to finding a balance. Where is that balance? I think, ultimately, that is where the struggle is.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that, if this government has proven one thing when it comes to that very important relationship, it is that we do want to see indigenous communities have the autonomy to make the decisions that are required to properly care for, in this case, children.
I strongly believe that, even though the member might find the timelines to be tight, it is important for this to be discussed at committee. I think that this speaks to why this needs to get to committee, so that the discussions can be had. Questions that he has can be posed to the department officials and those responsible to get to the bottom of it, so we can deliver on this very important part of the agreement.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the most important thing is that we ensure we are giving kids the access they need to preventative dental health care. What we see quite often is that those who cannot afford dental care end up in our emergency rooms accessing emergency dental care, which is being paid for through our health care system anyway. What we can accomplish by providing that preventative work in advance is that we can help ensure that kids do not end up in an emergency room and put to sleep in order to have emergency dental work done on them.
The impact it will have on individuals in my community is similar to the impact it will have on individuals in his community and communities throughout Canada. This will help create a baseline by which we all agree that children need access to dental care to ensure they have a shot at a healthy life in the future.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what the member is saying is right. That is the impression that would be given to somebody who is paying attention to what is going on in the House.
To the member's point, he is absolutely right that there is no program that covers all children under 12. In fact, I hope the program does not stop there. I hope that one day there will be a dental care program similar to the health care program where everybody is covered. That is where we ultimately need to get. When the founders of our health care system created it, there was an understanding that pharmacare and dental care were on the horizon, that those things would happen in the future, and yet here we are so many decades later still waiting.
I applaud the NDP's passion for this and continually pushing for it. I am glad that we can work together on this. I hope this is not the end and that we can continue to see dental care expand not just to the criteria that we are seeing here, but, indeed, to more Canadians in the years to come.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 4:52:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, absolutely, there are those prices that people are seeing right now, today, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned. Insurance costs are rising as a result of more flooding and various other issues.
There is also the price that future generations will pay. The less we do now to fight climate change and to put the right policies in place, the more we will make our children deal with later on. I know that Conservatives are very concerned about what our children will have to deal with later on. They bring it up all the time, but they only bring it up in a monetary perspective, in a dollar value. There is also the value of the quality of life, the quality of the environment and the planet that we are leaving children decades from now.
I want to make sure that my children, the parliamentary secretary's children, all members' children and all Canadian children have the best possible shot at having the best possible lives when they get older.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
