Thanks to everyone who joined our farewell event, and to the many others who have written personally. I do plan to respond to every one of you, it’ll just take some time!

As I shared in the Beach Metro, July 7 will be my final day in office. My constituency team remains available to help until a by-election is called, hopefully later this summer, and I’ll continue to support them as needed.

You may have seen that I’ve ruled out running in the provincial Liberal leadership. We’ve still got some final fundraising to close out a small exploratory campaign debt (you can contribute here or by e-transfer to info@teamnate.ca).

Beyond that, I’m open to ideas on what should come next.

Canada Day - walk with us in the 70th East York Canada Day Parade

If you’re free tomorrow morning, you should join us for my last East York Canada Day parade as your MP. The parade kicks off at 10:30 am, so make sure to join us at Dieppe Park around 10 am.

And yes, I’ll be in my polyester red suit which has also capably served for a decade.

There’s always lots going on in our community on Canada Day, and my plan is to head over to the Woodbine Legion around 1 pm for my last act as your Member of Parliament: as an annual victim to the dunk tank.

We’re lucky to live in Canada and I’ve been lucky to serve in our national parliament.

Subscribe now

Help select your next Liberal candidate here in Beaches-East York

The Prime Minister has told me there’ll be a local nomination to select our next local Liberal candidate here, and a number of contestants have already been hard at work.

I’ve always said that an open, fair, and competitive nomination is the best way forward. And I would underline the word fair after my own recent experience but, frankly, I trust in our federal party’s people and more sensible rules (at the federal level, participation is rightly limited to citizens and permanent residents).

Click here to become a member (it’s free) and vote for our next local Liberal candidate.

There are a number of great people running.

As I told supporters last week, I’ll be casting my vote for Tanveer Shahnawaz.

Tanveer was born and raised in East York, growing up in Crescent Town where he still lives and actively volunteers his time. And while he’s not yet 30, he’s been a huge part of our community and political team over the last decade. He ran my constituency office for years, he was an incredible help in the pandemic, and he was a special advisor to me in my brief but productive time as Minister of Housing.

He’ll be a strong voice for our community. He has the experience to be effective. And I know that he’ll work hard for us.

What comes next for me?

This is the question I get all the time now and the honest answer is that I’m not sure.

I still believe that Ontario deserves much better than the Ford government. That we deserve smart, fair, and honest leadership. That we need serious change in the Ontario Liberal Party and at Queen’s Park.

The chaotic island airport expansion move without any public plan (I’d call it back of the napkin, but there is no napkin) is just the most recent example that the Ford government is out of touch, incompetent, and on its last legs.

Ford came into power on a promise of being for the people. When he leaves office, he will be remembered as acting for his friends.

We need to clean up our politics. That means change at Queen’s Park, for sure. If we are serious, it also means change in the Ontario Liberal Party. After the experience in Scarborough Southwest, followed by no apparent reflection about the need to change, it will be for someone else to take that challenge on directly.

We have a small amount of fundraising left to clear all debt from the exploratory campaign period (you can donate here or by e-transfer to info@teamnate.ca).

Thank you to everyone who has been a part of our team. No question the hardest part of this decision is knowing what an incredible team we have all across Ontario.

I’ll continue to support good people running for office where I can, and to encourage young people to get involved in shaping our politics. You can always reach me at nathanielerskine@gmail.com if I can ever be of any help.

Many of you wrote to me over these last two months to encourage me to consider municipal office. It’s not lost on me that our city needs help, and that it would give me the chance to be close to home while still serving our community.

It’s also not a path I had really considered before, and I could use some time to recharge before I jump back into the political fray. So I’m not rushing anything.

I’ll take the next few weeks to think about the best way to contribute. It could mean municipal office. It could mean a mix of my own law practice together with pro bono work and community volunteering. It could mean a relaunch of the Uncommons podcast and more regular (and even more honest?) commentary, which I’d like to continue if there’s an audience for it. It could mean something else entirely.

For now, I’m going to enjoy the summer, spend time with family, and coach baseball.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and feedback.

And please do reach out if I can ever be of any help.

Share

You’re also invited to celebrate our amazing team at a farewell event on June 25.

Thanks for the opportunity to serve our community here in Beaches-East York over the last decade. And thank you to everyone - especially my family - who has been a part of our political journey along the way.

Register here to join us for Thursday June 25 at Brunswick Bierworks.

You can watch my final speech here:

And you can read an abridged version here:

Thank you, Beaches-East York

Giving a farewell speech in Parliament feels a little like delivering a eulogy at one’s own funeral.

So, if I leave you with anything, let it be my personal gratitude for the opportunity to serve - to make a difference - and the unending importance of doing politics differently.

Politics is like pushing a boulder up a hill. All of us feel that at times.

It is rewarding and frustrating. It is meaningful progress and unfinished work.

Sometimes it rolls back down on you, and sometimes you get it to the top (and sometimes only think you’ve got it there).

Three things matter as you’re pushing that boulder uphill.

First, you need ambition. And I don’t mean ambition in personal title. I mean ambition in ideas.

Second, you need a team. No one accomplishes anything alone, and I wouldn’t have accomplished anything that I have over the years without my team.

Third, you need persistence. Shaw once said that “the reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” In politics, one needs almost unreasonable persistence at times.

Now, it does, sometimes, pay off. I’ve been lucky to be a part of efforts to deliver progress at times:

• Stronger climate action and accountability for my kids and hopefully for our economy. Introduced and worked to improve climate accountability legislation and a consistent advocate for smart climate policy and greater ambition.

• Action to reduce poverty, including the Canada Child Benefit, increases to GIS for seniors, a new Canada Workers Benefit, and a new Disability Benefit. I’ve been directly involved in advocacy to improve these benefits and while there’s unquestionably more work to do (ex. OAS reform could end seniors’ poverty without a new dollar), there’s also been significant progress.

• Action to defend competition and protect consumers. I’ve regularly worked across party lines at committee to protect consumers and hold CEOS of oligopolies accountable. For example, when grocery CEOs colluded to cancel pandemic pay for low-income workers, we delivered recommendation that the government acted on to criminalize wage fixing.

• Getting more housing built. I was lucky to play a larger role in those efforts and advocacy. There’s now a broader understanding of the need to end restrictive zoning and get out of the way so the private market can deliver. More work is still needed to deliver non-market housing and truly treat housing as a home first.

• Action to protect animals. Founded an animal welfare caucus, and led efforts to end the captivity of whales and dolphins, ban shark finning, end testing on animals (especially cosmetic testing), strengthen the Criminal Code against animal abuse, and more. If you told me before I was elected that I’d be at a press conference alongside Dr. Jane Goodall and Murray Sinclair advocating for treating animals humanely, I would not have believed you.

• Treating addiction as a health issue and Canadians as responsible adults. In one case, we legalized cannabis and the sky didn’t fall (and now I’m no longer a criminal). We’ve also made progress in treating substance use as a health issue, although still more for us to do to follow the evidence and save lives.

• Being there for our community. There in the pandemic to ensure thousands of constituents could access benefits and supports when they needed them most. There for the Danforth families to support them through tragedy and call for sensible gun control. There to help constituents raise new issues, including a childhood cancer survivor realize $30 million for pediatric cancer.

• Defending human rights and civil liberties. Questioned the constitutionality of the government’s first assisted dying law and defended death with dignity. Questioned the overbroad use and invocation of the Emergencies Act. Helped to fix overbroad anti-terrorism legislation. And defended international human rights, including Rohingya refugees, Uyghurs, Hong Kong democracy activities, Palestinians, and more.

• Making politics about ideas. This was a promise I made in the nomination back in 2013/14 when I was first starting out in politics. I’ve done my best to explain my reasons for votes and to push new ideas onto the government’s agenda. In the pandemic, we transitioned from hosting regular town halls to hosting the Uncommons podcast. And I’ve been lucky to have many colleagues in this place join me for conversations across the aisle to really make politics about ideas.

Yes, I leave with a sense of accomplishment in some ways.

And also a sense of unfinished business.

I do hope future Parliaments will take the ideas of wealth inequality and generational fairness more seriously.

That there will be action to ensure that in a wealthy country like ours, we don’t see people live in poverty and that we see all people live with a core sense of dignity.

That we see transformational action to deliver competition. We shouldn’t be a country of oligopolies.

That we see a wartime effort to build housing, transit, and clean energy infrastructure.

And that we take international peace, assistance, and cooperation more seriously. We could use more Pearson in this moment.

Now, this is a job that comes with little job description. It is what you put into it. It is what you make it.

I’ve had some roles over the years - the anti-poverty caucus co-chair alongside Senator Pate, our animal welfare caucus, 416 caucus chair, chair of the Canadian group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and yes, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure. One of the busiest times of my life (and while it was only 4 months, I did serve under two Prime Ministers).

But the role I have lived the most, the one I’ve worked hardest to make a reality, is simply to be a principled voice in Parliament.

One that takes ideas seriously. Is willing to work across the aisle. Acts with integrity. And more than anything, is honest. The value that should be the most important in this place.

As I’ve said before, no political party represents our views perfectly. We find the party that best represents our views and values, and we engage, debate, and organize to bring our party and country closer to those goals.

I’ve seen my role as one to push the government to be the best version of itself.

Yes, that means disagreeing at times. At one’s best, making that disagreement about ideas. And, more often than not, with the benefit of time and persistence, seeing change.

When you take a step back, not only do we agree on more than we disagree, but so many of us care about the same approach to politics when we step outside of this place.

When I was first running in a nomination - 29 years old with no idea what I was doing - a friend of mine from law school gave me the book The Tragedy in the Commons. It is a series of exit interviews from former parliamentarians. It’s really a series of laments.

They all say basically the same thing: that they got to Ottawa and wanted to make a difference. But when they got here, they read the canned talking points, delivered the pre-written speeches, and voted how they were told. And they didn’t make the difference that they set out to make.

When I got elected, I was determined to not give an exit interview like that. And in the back of my mind, I always kept this quote from Kurt Vonnegut: “We are what we pretend to be, so we should be careful about what we pretend to be.” I happen to think it’s doubly true in politics.

Now, this is my last speech. To judge the end, one might go back to the start. And in my very first speech, I “stressed the importance of independence in the House, the importance of thoughtfulness, and the importance of reasonable disagreement.”

We should all act how we want this place to be.

We need more ideas, more independent thinking, more honesty.

Honesty is central to trust. And trust is at the heart of our representative democracy.

So amidst the centralization, the pressure, the Whip (the Whip’s couch), act how you want the place to be.

And yes, I can hear the common answer: but isn’t politics a team sport?

First, I would say that we are trustees in the public interest, even if it means the occasional visit to the Whip’s office. Yes, we all win elections as a team. But we should remember why we win elections. We win elections to serve ideas, we don’t come up with ideas to serve elections.

Second, we’re also voices of our home communities, and those home communities are our team too. When I go back to my local grocery store, and I see a friend from high school, they are my team. When I go back home and see the volunteer who knocked doors with me in the snow in 2015, they are my team.

I’ve been a proud member of the Liberal caucus since 2015. I’ve been prouder to be the representative for Beaches-East York.

I want to say thank you to Beaches-East York, to everyone back home.

Thank you to supporters, for everything.

And thank you to Amy and my family, mostly for putting up with me, but also for standing beside me.

Subscribe now

Your support and words of encouragement mean more than you can know.

And it’s that very team - including our volunteers on the ground and voters who were shocked by what they saw - that has overwhelmingly asked me to appeal the results.

A 19 vote difference.

While it’s tough to lose a close one, it’s even more taxing on me to keep fighting. And I thought long and hard about letting it go because that would just be easier (for any future politics, for my own personal life, for my sanity, etc.).

But doing politics differently is why I left law in the first place, and honesty and integrity matter more than whatever might be easier for me personally.

So we have appealed.

It’s about the integrity of the process, not about me.

And to make that as clear as possible, I will remove myself from any future process or consideration in Scarborough Southwest if it means the party will actually investigate and take action.

We’ve now done a full debrief with our team of scrutineers, who are made up of accomplished lawyers and experienced election observers.

Here’s what you should know:

First, there were 34 more ballots ultimately counted than there were recorded voters and no reasonable explanation for the significant discrepancy. If the same error rate occurred in a federal election, it would mean over 400,000 unaccounted-for ballots. Not acceptable, obviously. Especially when the margin was only 19 votes.

Second, there were repeated and serious inconsistencies with respect to proof of identification, and problematic actions in the voting area that completely undermined any ballot secrecy.

But don’t take it from me.

Our Chief Scrutineer, Andreas Katsouris, has 25 years of experience working with political campaigns and promoting democracy. He has trained, supported or participated in election observer groups in Armenia, Belarus, Egypt, Tunisia, Venezuela, the West Bank & Gaza, Uganda, Yemen, Ukraine, and more.

Here are his words, not mine:

1. There was an organized effort by Mr. Hafiz’s campaign to direct, monitor and pressure people throughout the voting process, from the time they walked into the building to after they cast their ballots. We saw many, many cases of people hanging around watchfully in the voting area, telling voters explicitly what they should do. Multiple people took calls on speakerphone or video so they could get instructions in the voting booth, while marking their ballots.

2. There were countless cases of individuals taking pictures of their ballots. When brought to the attention of Party officials, they acknowledged they’d all seen the same practice taking place throughout the day. In most of the world, this would be considered clear evidence of vote buying.

   

3. Among the large number of temporary residents who voted, many could not initially state their address when asked and defaulted to documentation. An unusually high number of people claimed to have “just lost” their driver’s licence or “just moved” to the area.

4. The party provided a list of IDs it would accept and then broke its own rules. Dozens and dozens of asylum seekers voted with their refugee claimant documents. Others were able to prove their addresses using just an apartment lease, sometimes unsigned and two of which improbably listed voters under 18. Other non-standard forms of ID accepted included digital report cards and Amazon orders. One man even voted with a visitor’s visa and foreign passport.

5. In the last hour or two, the OLP lost control of the voting process nearly entirely. Various people came and went, moved throughout the room, or hung around with little scrutiny. Our team witnessed repeated irregularities: people voting and then returning to the credentials line, people staying in the voting area long after they had voted, people entering the voting area via the exit.

There’s a lot more that could be said. For example, hundreds of Ontario Liberal voters and citizens were struck from the list in advance of the vote, while Mr. Hafiz’s campaign manager Ted Lojko - yes the same one who ran Han Dong’s 2019 nomination - was joined by other party establishment to get out hundreds of temporary residents to “save the party” as one prominent insider put it.

The party needs saving all right.

And to start, it needs to get to the bottom of what took place through a full investigation.

A new nomination meeting should be called or a new candidate appointed - and again, not me.

And to protect the integrity of our democracy, a full investigation needs to be matched by serious reforms.

It is obvious, for example, that we need to amend voter eligibility rules to limit participation to citizens and permanent residents.

With the Party unable to enforce basic rules central to the democratic process, such as ballot secrecy, and with 34 extra unexplained ballots, we need Elections Ontario to be tasked with managing nomination processes to safeguard their integrity and restore basic trust.

Yes, we need change across Ontario. We also need change in the Ontario Liberal Party.

We deserve truth and accountability.

And that change starts in Scarborough.

After a big win for our federal Liberals, the Ontario Liberal Party has officially called the nomination election in Scarborough Southwest for Saturday May 9 (timing TBD).

The deadline to register to vote in that election is Saturday April 25 at 5 pm.

Anyone who is 14+ and a resident can register for free. The riding boundaries are the east side of Vic Park to the west side of Markham Rd, and the south side of Eglinton down to the lake.

Register to vote

Sign up, spread the word, and help us build a different kind of politics.

We can’t take anything for granted in a contested nomination race. And this is an important step towards delivering serious leadership, rebuilding the Ontario Liberal Party, and ending the Ford government’s incompetence and corruption.

We deserve so much better.

We deserve a smart, fair, and honest government.

A smart government that creates economic opportunity, builds housing, transit and energy infrastructure at speed and scale, drives competition and innovation instead of protecting insiders, manages public finances responsibly, and prioritizes excellence in public education and youth employment because our future depends on it.

A fair government that delivers dignity, tackles the cost of living and inequality, prioritizes efficient and effective public healthcare, improves home care for our seniors, reverses Ford’s OSAP cuts, and ends homelessness.

An honest government that acts with integrity, strengthens transparency rules and accountability watchdogs, empowers parliamentarians as voices for their communities, and works across the aisle to get things done and to rebuild trust.

There’s a lot more to add to the above, and I hope you’ll join us and add your own ideas.

To long-time followers, thanks for the support over the years. I wouldn’t have been able to do politics differently in Ottawa without your support. To those who just subscribed, welcome. We’re out to make an even bigger difference with your help.

Stopping Doug Ford starts in Scarborough.

Register to vote

I hope everyone is able to enjoy some of this beautiful long weekend, and I hope some of you will also enjoy this Uncommons episode with the always thoughtful Karina Gould.

We met in Karina’s stomping grounds of Burlington at Peach Coffee Co., and we cover a lot of ground, from AI and online safety, to Ford’s OSAP cuts, to school food. But the broader conversation is really about the future of progressive politics.

Karina is a friend, she was an excellent minister (competence is underrated in politics!), and I still think she’d make a great premier, even though she’s opted out of the leadership race.

A reminder that it’s advance polls for the three by-elections from today through Monday.

And another reminder that we’re marching in this Sunday’s Beaches Lions Easter Parade, and you can join us at 1:30 pm at the RC Harris water treatment plant (the most important Easter tasks are rhyming clues for the kids’ Easter hunt and ironing my yellow/purple suits for the parade).

I’ve been asked to be the grand marshal this year, which is pretty fun considering it’s my last year marching as an MP, I volunteered in the parade with the Lions before I was elected, and I watched this same parade as a kid.

Follow Karina on Facebook, Instagram, X.

Watch more episodes of Uncommons on YouTube: click here

A deep dive into section 33 of our Charter is a little wonky, but it matters because it has a huge impact on our individual rights and freedoms.

Subscribe now

There’s a real risk to our civil liberties if we normalize the use of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause.

Simply, it allows politicians to pass a law that infringes Charter rights unreasonably, and courts are neutered from striking the law down.

Take Quebec’s Bill 21, the central focus of litigation before the Supreme Court. The law banned public sector workers from wearing religious symbols. So Muslim women who wear the hijab can no longer find public employment as teachers, doctors, judges, you name it.

It was passed in the name of secularism but, in effect, it is an extreme infringement of religious freedom. State secularism, properly understood, protects both freedom of and freedom from religion. It means neutrality. Not Bill 21 style suppression.

Now, our individual rights aren’t unlimited at the expense of the collective good, and section 1 of the Charter provides for reasonable limits on rights in pursuit of important public goods. Two guardrails operate here: first, there has to be a pressing and substantial policy objective and, second, the rights limitation has to be reasonable.

The notwithstanding clause is an extraordinary provision precisely because it allows politicians to infringe a right even where a court finds that infringement to be unreasonable.

Why does the Charter’s notwithstanding clause exist?

You might wonder why in the world anyone would think it’s a good idea.

Well, the federal fathers of the Charter didn’t. Pierre Trudeau envisioned courts having the final say on Charter interpretation, as they do with the division of powers.

Western Premiers disagreed. Judges are fallible, of course, and these provincial leaders argued for the supremacy of elected parliaments over appointed judges.

The notwithstanding clause was, in the end, a compromise to reach a consensus.

As Alberta Premier and the clause’s architect, Peter Lougheed put it:

“Mr. Trudeau got his Charter and the Western Premiers got both the Alberta Amending Formula and a notwithstanding clause.”

Thoughtful academics have called it a “very Canadian solution,” striking a balance between the British parliamentary tradition and the strong judicial review of the United States.

But it was also to be a solution saved for extraordinary situations. Those around the table when it was adopted have called it a “last resort” to be used in “exceptional situations” and “after careful consideration.”

Contrary to that original intent, the notwithstanding clause has been invoked by provincial governments more in the last 10 years than in the first 35 years of the Charter’s history. The feds have never used it.

Most recently, the Alberta government invoked it four times: once to pre-emptively prevent judges from striking down a law that violated the collective bargaining rights of teachers, and three times to protect new laws that limit the rights of transgender youth.

These moves followed Saskatchewan invoking the clause pre-emptively to insulate its own law policing names and pronouns in schools.

And, of course, that move followed the Quebec government using it pre-emptively in 2022 to protect an expansion of French language laws, and yes, the controversial Bill 21 passed in 2019.

Here in Ontario, Premier Ford has used or threatened to use the clause three times. A law that explicitly preferenced political parties by restricting third party spending, proposed legislation that would have banned education workers from striking (abandoned in the face of pushback) and a threat to use it when he messed around in Toronto’s 2018 municipal election.

These are all controversial uses of the notwithstanding clause. And mostly pre-emptive uses - not where a parliamentary body, after careful consideration, believes that the courts have gotten a decision wrong on a matter of important public policy, but where parliaments are afraid of judicial scrutiny entirely.

If we aren’t careful here, Charter rights will mean less than they should.

And sure, there is no doubt that judges are fallible. Just look at Citizens United in the United States, and the damage it’s wrought on American democracy.

It’s also true that populist decision-making through parliament can lead to the tyranny of the majority versus minority rights. History is littered with these rights violations.

The notwithstanding clause was the trade-off here, but new rules are clearly needed to constrain the clause’s misuse.

Interestingly, Peter Lougheed, yes, the same Alberta Premier and champion of the clause, offers us a useful way forward.

25 years ago, he argued for three straightforward amendments:

1. If the notwithstanding clause is used, a legislature should be required to spell out with specificity the purpose of the law.

2. Such an extraordinary measure should require a “higher level of authorization than a simple majority.” Lougheed argued for a supermajority of 60%. I’d go higher, but the general point stands.

3. There should be no pre-emptive use of the clause. It should only be used after careful consideration of a judicial decision.

Our Supreme Court can and should address this last point, at least in part. If anything good comes from the Bill 21 case, it’ll be that judges can still weigh in with reasons that explain whether or not a right has been unreasonably infringed, even if the notwithstanding clause prevents a more meaningful judicial remedy.

Of course, a paper judgment might help inform public debate, but it means little to those who have had their rights infringed.

Parliaments, both federal and provincial, should act together to amend the Constitution and establish stronger guardrails for the use of such an extraordinary measure.

We should act together to ensure Charter rights are respected and protected.

The rundown on the Ontario Budget can be found below. We also just finished recording a piece on the notwithstanding clause (with the Bill 21 hearing before the Supreme Court earlier this week), which should be out soon. And the Uncommons podcast is returning after a hiatus, with guest Karina Gould.

Quick federal update.

At the federal level, by-elections are underway likely to lead to a Liberal majority, and the Carney government has maintained a relentless focus on the economy and trade, affordability, and defence. The groceries and essentials benefit was a major spend to address affordability, and lifting the HST on new homes will help to some degree as well. We’ve also already hit our 2% NATO target (promise kept), and Carney has been leading the push for a new defence and resilience bank.

More should still be expected to come on the housing and clean energy / environment files, as neither is operating yet at a scale commensurate to the challenge. And some caution is warranted on the importance of improving legislation with the help of experts and advocates at committee. We’ve seen mistakes and missed opportunities on a few occasions now - C-3, C-5, C-9, C-12 - and these are even more important lessons to learn if we earn a majority.

Carney’s Davos speech has also been tested, as Trump and Netanyahu’s ill-considered war against Iran and Israel’s plans to occupy Lebanon have created chaos and instability, killed too many civilians, and led to skyrocketing gas prices here at home when affordability was already a top concern. After an odd initial statement, the Canadian government has more recently and rightly remained critical of the Iranian regime while also emphasizing the importance of international law, protecting civilians, and restoring shipping routes as part of a ceasefire. Perhaps the MAGA base will remember the “No New Wars” pledge at some point in advance of the midterms.

Of course, Carney brings a seriousness to the role that stands in stark contrast to the alternatives. It also stands in stark contrast to the glaring lack of serious leadership we see here in Ontario.

Ontario Budget 2026: there is no plan.

It’s more apparent than ever that it’s past time for change.

The Ford government released a budget yesterday that might well have been entitled “tired and short on ideas” instead of “a plan to protect Ontario.” A series of re-re-announcements more than anything, mediocre past hits on repeat.

The temporary move to lift HST from new homes (in partnership with the feds) and the tax cut for small businesses will help a little for sure. Of course, it’s all deficit financed in a bloated and mostly directionless budget that would have the Tories screaming if any Liberal thought to introduce it.

Transit policy still reads like it’s scrawled on the back of a napkin, and the uncosted tunnel is top of that list. The One Fare Program extension is welcome, but it pales in comparison to the delays and mismanagement of the GO Expansion we need to connect our province. When we talk at the federal level about building with speed and scale, this isn’t it.

Public education is an embarrassing state of affairs, with total education sector funding now at the lowest percentage it’s been in thirty years. An entire generation is getting less than they need and deserve. Yes, there is some modest increase in funding for autism services, but it won’t go nearly far enough for the tens of thousands of kids on the waiting list. And while the government correctly identifies a real need - namely purchasing gaps for teachers - their proposed solution is more friendly to Staples than it is for the classroom.

Overall, funding for public education since 2018 hasn’t kept pace with inflation, and this year is no different. It is cuts by stealth and a clear signal that our kids don’t matter to this administration. They somehow find funding to put cops in our schools when we don’t have enough teachers.

And for higher education, the Ford government is moving forward with deep cuts to OSAP, pushing post-secondary opportunities away from the students in the greatest need and saddling those who can least afford it with more debt.

On housing, starts have fallen off a cliff, the Minister tells us he doesn’t even think about meeting the government’s own target - “I’m not a housing expert” is the refrain - and while the tax cut is decent short-term relief for some, there’s no support for municipalities to speed up timeline approvals, no move to use new technology, and no effort to address homelessness or support non-market housing.

On healthcare, expanded homecare is welcome as is continued funding for building new hospitals. But there remains a gap from what the Ontario Hospital Association needs, and the Ford cuts to safe consumption sites will be measured in lives lost and increased emergency department visits the system can’t afford.

Hallway healthcare is worse than it has ever been, an issue Ford told us he’d fix back in 2018. If he can find “a few billion” for a Toronto convention centre no one asked for, the rest of Ontario should be asking why “a few billion” can’t be found for healthcare.

On public safety, the focus on expanded prison capacity is an absolute necessary. But so too is making the justice system function, and that’s a continued failing. It all comes on the heels of a cartoonishly failed attempt to silence protest, instead of focusing seriously on the effective enforcement of existing laws against harassment, intimidation, and hate.

On energy, the government is deficit financing untargeted consumer subsidies but leaving it entirely to the federal government to finance long-term clean energy investments that will create jobs and opportunity. We need a serious and strategic plan to drive economic opportunity through clean, affordable, and sovereign energy.

That’s just it, though. There is never a plan. Never has been a plan. Never will be a plan.

Ontario is overpriced and mismanaged, and there’s nothing in the budget that takes seriously the cost of living.

There is, though, a little change buried in the budget to our freedom of information laws. Yes, they are gutting transparency laws retroactively (retroactively!) because Ford doesn’t want the business of the province he’s conducted on his personal cell phone to be made public. After the Greenbelt and Skills Development scandals, why bother with transparency anyway?

We deserve better. It’s as simple as that.

Students here in Ontario are in a different fight. Doug Ford has slashed OSAP support, trying to balance the post-secondary books on the backs of low and middle income students and their families. It’s regressive, wrong, and should be reversed.

Which brings me to the main reason for writing today: a move from federal to provincial politics.

Thanks to everyone across Beaches-East York for the ongoing support.

Our politics is built on trust and we’ve worked hard to earn the trust of east end voters through four elections since 2015.

That grassroots approach has worked, I’ve been lucky to serve Beaches-East York for over a decade now, and our community has shaped me as a person and a politician.

Thanks to your support here at home, I’ve been able to do politics differently in Ottawa and bring a sense of principled independence to the role.

And we’ve been able to make a real difference. Delivering affordable housing and transit support for our city. Funding for pediatric cancer research. Stronger climate action and clean innovation. New protections and income supports for workers. A public health approach to addiction. Support for urban Indigenous communities. Rules to strengthen public safety online. Advocacy to defend human rights and civil liberties. And more.

We’ve also faced major challenges head on together, from a global pandemic to the tragic Danforth shooting.

We’ve made a difference, together. There is no doubt. And now there’s an opportunity to make an even bigger difference with your help.

A new chapter and a bigger difference.

I left law for politics more than a decade ago to make a difference for our community and country by rebuilding our federal politics.

Today, the biggest opportunity to make a difference is at Queen’s Park. Ontario is overpriced and mismanaged. We need to hold Ford accountable, and to deliver the smart, fair, and honest leadership that’s sorely missing.

We came close to leading renewal in 2023. 46.5% on the final ballot. And a lot of lessons learned along the way.

We’re now building an even stronger team. Ready to win, together.

Change starts in Scarborough Southwest and our shared east end.

Mary-Margaret McMahon is already working hard in the legislature and there’s now a provincial by-election in Scarborough Southwest.

Our path to deliver change is clear: win the local Liberal nomination, flip a by-election where the party has come in 3rd for the last three elections, win the leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party, and deliver overdue change at Queen’s Park.

If you live in Scarborough Southwest, register to vote in the nomination race here. And encourage others you know in the riding to do the same.

Register in Scarborough Southwest

Anyone across Ontario can help our campaign — join the team at teamnate.ca

Register across Ontario

I’m all in for Ontario. And the change we need starts in Scarborough Southwest and across our shared east end. Anyone who lives here knows that life happens across our shared communities on both sides of Victoria Park.

Through high school, I played baseball at Birchmount and for Scarborough, as just one personal example. My family knows Birch Cliff, Cliffside, and the Bluffs all too well. My kids would live at the Eglinton Town Centre if they could.

As an MP, I’ve advocated for housing, transit, and affordability for residents across our city, and supported organizations that serve both ridings because they are shared communities.

These are communities that I know well and we will work relentlessly to deliver for.

To deliver economic opportunity, affordable homes, reliable fast transit, accessible healthcare, and excellence in education.

To deliver a serious government that works. And that works for all of us, not just Ford’s friends.

We deserve better. And if you want better, the answer is participation.

Q&A

How does the nomination process work?

You need to be a member of the Ontario Liberals (it’s free to join) and a resident of Scarborough Southwest to vote in the nomination.

If you live in Scarborough Southwest, sign up now!

If you know others who live in Scarborough Southwest, let us know by emailing info@teamnate.ca, and please share this with them and encourage them to register too.

When will the nomination take place?

We don’t yet know when the vote will take place, but expect it to happen shortly after the federal by-election in Scarborough Southwest.

There is some urgency to registering as many new members/voters as we can, so please help us grow the team!

When will you resign your federal seat?

I will resign my seat as soon as the provincial by-election is held, which is up to Doug Ford to call. I expect that to happen after the House rises in June, because Ford has suggested he’ll wait the full 6 months to call the race (he obviously doesn’t want me in the legislature).

In the meantime, I’m committed to supporting Prime Minister Carney’s government where every vote counts.

Why Scarborough Southwest and not another riding?

Our leader needs to be committed to seeking a seat in the legislature at the first available opportunity. I’m all in for Ontario.

And luckily, Scarborough Southwest is right next door to Beaches-East York, a shared community where I have strong connections both personal and political. It’s also where local name recognition and our broad base of volunteers across our shared east end can play a huge and positive role.

Doly Begum has been a strong progressive representative, she’s going to make a great Liberal MP for our east end community, and I have no doubt that she’ll make a bigger difference as a member of our federal team.

I’ll continue to support Prime Minister Carney and our federal Liberal team.

At the same time, I know that the biggest difference I can make is rebuilding our provincial Liberal party to deliver for Ontarians.

We’ve been working hard to build a provincial team that’s ready to run, win, and govern together, and the rules for the leadership race will be announced soon.

When it comes to Ontario, I’m all in.

To that end, I’ll seek the Ontario Liberal Party’s nomination to run in the Scarborough Southwest by-election. I’ve communicated this to interim leader John Fraser, and I will continue to support Prime Minister Carney as an active member of our federal caucus in the meantime.

We deserve better than this tired, incompetent, and self-dealing Conservative government.

We deserve smart, fair, and honest leadership here in Ontario.

The answer is participation. Join our growing team at teamnate.ca

Kidding aside, the subject of the sermon invitation was a serious one: Canada’s role towards a just peace for Palestine and Israel. Given the absurdity that is the “Board of Peace”, I spoke too about the loss of trust in international institutions and the difficult task of rebuilding them based on shared values, applied consistently.

Subscribe now

And I also touched on other human rights catastrophes, from Tehran to Minneapolis.

You can watch or read the full text of my speech below.

Prime Minister Carney’s incredible Davos speech was a useful context as he presented us with the right challenge on the world stage: “building what we claim to believe in.”

After that Davos speech and the strategic China deal, Carney talked Ford down from the ledge over a slice of pizza, he side-stepped another tariff threat (though yet another threat has been made as I write this) and announced a groceries and essentials benefit built on the number one priority ask from Food Banks Canada.

He’s certainly had a good run recently. And there’s more on the way, with a much needed auto strategy coming soon (GM announced major layoffs just today).

For my part, I’m currently working on questions around responsible AI in my federal policy work, and welcome any feedback or experts you think I should engage with.

And we are also actively team-building as we explore what another provincial leadership run could look like. I hope you’ll join us in that effort.

Speech/sermon at the joint Holy Land service hosted by Trinity-St. Paul’s United Church, together with Bloor St. United Church and Bathurst United Church.

Thank you for hosting me. And thank you for braving the weather.

I was invited to discuss human rights and Canada’s role in a just peace for Israel and Palestine. I wanted to start, though, with the tragedy unfolding closer to home.

In Minnesota, we are witnessing the brutality of fascism in real time. Masked agents, encouraged to enlist to defend homeland and culture, are killing American citizens in the street with no legal justification or excuse, and with no legal consequence. The administration defends the indefensible, telling us to ignore our eyes and ears.

It is horrifying to watch the video evidence of this brutality. And it is horrifying to watch our neighbouring democracy lose itself.

Over the last year, we’ve seen abuse and threats levelled against Canada and other democratic allies abroad. And now we see America trampling on its own democracy and rule of law at home. Acting inconsistently with its own foundational values.

For a Republican party that has traditionally prided itself as grounded in a faith-based political morality, it has so badly lost its way.

Now, I’m not a religious person. The few times I found myself in a beautiful church like this was as a kid was when I tagged along with my good friend Tim. Some of you will know his mom, Norah.

Some of you will also know my mom, Sara. She’s here today. And while ours was not a religious household, it was a household where right and wrong mattered. Where values mattered. Where our treatment of others mattered.

In Parliament over the last decade, I’ve had the good fortune to work alongside faith-based advocates on ending poverty, advancing climate action and reconciliation, and defending human rights. Shared values make for a common cause.

In preparing for this morning, I was asked by members of the church what scripture I’d be relying on. Scripture is not overly familiar, but certain passages do communicate the shared values I want to emphasize this morning.

Micah 6:8: “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly.

Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” Or as Proverbs 31 puts it: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

These are all verses that speak to universal truths about how we should treat others and the aims we should pursue in our lives. Treat others with dignity and seek justice.

If you’ll bear with me, allow me to read two more passages: “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Now, that is a different text. That’s the preamble and Article 1 to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an enduring document of 30 Articles in total that offers a foundation of rights and the realization of one’s full potential.

Everyone deserves inherent dignity and inalienable rights.

It is both a self-evident truth and a moral pursuit because that truth is so often unrealized.

Interestingly, the preliminary draft of that document was written by a Canadian, John Peters Humphrey. It’s a fact we should celebrate, as Canadians. An example of moral leadership on the world stage. An idea that many of us take to heart, believing it is not only the right thing to do but also part of who we are, part of our history.

We should celebrate that history without rewriting it, though. When it came to the adoption of the Universal Declaration, Canada was one of only 8 states to initially abstain. In a speech to mark the declaration’s 20th anniversary, Humphrey described embarrassment by Canada’s decision to abstain and his continued disappointment with the government’s lack of commitment to international human rights.

One could well imagine him giving the same speech today.

After all, we are reducing foreign aid overall, today. And while we’ve made important commitments to the reconstruction of Gaza, and certainly to Ukraine, too often vocal commitments to human rights are not matched by real substance.

Now, in fairness, it can feel like chaos in today’s world, with little semblance of any international rules.

A UN rapporteur warns that the Iranian regime may have killed more than 20,000 civilians in its criminal crackdown on protesters. The UN human rights chief says Sudan’s civil war has put people through “horror and hell” - it is a genocide of systematic killings, sexual violence and ethnic cleansing. Russia’s illegal and brutal attack on Ukraine is going on four years now, with hundreds of thousands of casualties.

And then there’s Israel’s indiscriminate destruction of Gaza and the dehumanization of the Palestinian people. Last summer, Israeli human rights organizations B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel concluded that the mass killing, decimation of basic infrastructure, forcible displacement on a huge scale, and official policies and statements led to the “unequivocal conclusion that Israel is taking coordinated, deliberate action to destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. In other words, Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

In August, I wrote to Minister Anand to emphasize the need for action. I wrote that the world watched the heinous October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on innocent Israeli civilians in horror. And ever since, we’ve watched Israel’s mass and indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, forced displacement, intentional starvation, and wholesale destruction of health, educational, religious, and cultural facilities. All while Israeli leaders dehumanize the Palestinian people.

I emphasized that Canada cannot be complicit in Israel’s crimes and that we must proactively advance peace in every possible way. To recognize steps taken towards an arms embargo and to call for more complete and transparent action. To commend the symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state, and to call for multilateral cooperation to establish a peacekeeping presence that would facilitate the distribution of critical humanitarian aid, secure an overdue ceasefire and release of hostages, and ensure peace and security for any future free and fair elections.

So much, of course, depends on the United States here. As Prime Minister Carney put it recently, “we knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient…and…that international law applies with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.”

In a brazen reinforcement of this reality, we’ve watched the United States sanction prosecutors and judges at the International Criminal Court for applying the law, including for issuing an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.

Given the reality of international law, it was always the case that a ceasefire depended on the US acting or a strong enough coalition of like-minded middle powers asserting a more forceful role.

A ceasefire was realized in October because the United States finally acted. But in the interest of truth-telling, let’s not misstate the reality here either.

The United Nations Office for Project Services tells us that critical lifelines have remained closed and that “people continue to be killed, day in, day out.” There have been countless ceasefire violations, hundreds killed, and I received this email earlier this week from an UNRWA representative:

I regret to report that yesterday (January 20) Israeli forces stormed UNRWA’s headquarters and began demolishing our facilities. Recall that this complex has been used by the Agency since before the 1967 War.

Underscoring the political nature of this illegal action, Israeli Minister Ben Gvir and MK Yulia Malinovsky were present at the demolition, arguing over which of them should get the credit for this unprecedented attack against a UN Agency. Jerusalem’s deputy mayor made matters worse saying: “With God’s help, we will destroy, we will eliminate, and annihilate all UNRWA personnel”.

Subscribe now

UN Security Council Resolution 2803 offers a very imperfect path towards a more enduring peace. Positively, it guaranteed the freeing of remaining hostages and called for the entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip to proceed without interference. Hamas is to have no future in the governance of Gaza, and the IDF is to withdraw completely as a multilateral “International Stabilization Force” oversees security.

But let me read you a few recent headlines and let’s consider what the prospects are for an enduring peace that respects the self-determination and safety of both Palestinians and Israelis. These are just from the last 24 to 48 hours:

‘Israeli drone strike kills two children collecting firewood in Gaza’

‘Cold and malnutrition claim more victims in Gaza amid winter rains’

‘3 journalists killed in Israeli airstrike on car in central Gaza, health officials say’

‘Trump unveils his vision to rebuild Gaza into a seaside metropolis’

Yes, the so-called Board of Peace is a grotesque absurdity. Participation is based on who can curry favour with Trump or outright buy their way in. Putin is welcome. Carney, not so much. Netanyahu is welcome. Any Palestinians representative, not so much.

As Donald Trump, the self-appointed Chair of the Board for life, put it: “Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do.”

Canada needs to pursue two actions.

First, at home, it’s the same action as ever. Being crystal clear that criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza is not antisemitism and to respect and protect free expression. At the same time, ensure that when voices do intimidate, harass and engage in antisemitism, there are consequences for those actions. We need to make sure we respect and protect rights here at home: free expression and security.

Abroad, Canada will need to work with other like-minded countries and engage directly with the Gaza Executive Committee to restrain the worst excesses of the real estate baron’s dream. And, perhaps, to ensure that the stabilization force functions effectively. We’ll see where that goes.

Carney spoke recently of a rupture:

The multilateral institutions on which middle powers have relied - the WTO, the UN, the COP - the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat.”

What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth? It means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as if it still functions as advertised… It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals… And it means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described.

The absurdity that is the Board of Peace exists because of a failure of existing institutions. But these institutions still matter.

A friend of mine, David Adler - he’s one of the organizers of the PanAmerican Congress and was on the Global Sumud Flotilla - he wrote in the wake of US actions in Venezuela: “We may never have had international law, but you will miss it when it’s gone.”

Or consider the words of John Peters Humphrey who said: “Surely a world that can achieve the atomic bomb but fail in the creation of the United Nations is morally bankrupt. And this moral bankruptcy is the reason for our failure to organize peace.”

The answer to Carney’s challenge, to Adler’s, to Humphrey’s is to rebuild international institutions that function in keeping with our values.

That act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.

That embody our shared values not only in name but in practice, applied consistently.

That carry the ability to not only recognize everyone’s inherent dignity and inalienable rights, but the ability to ensure they are realized.

The Canadian government should lead the way. It did so, once upon a time, in the creation of NATO. Clause 2, the “Canadian clause” respecting non-military cooperation, was a testament to Pearson’s leadership.

But Canadians can act too, even without their government. We know this, again, because of the story of John Peters Humphrey. Despite the Canadian government abstaining on the creation of the Universal declaration of Human rights, he helped to lead the way.

Share

Subscribe now

He also recently landed a deal to reset trade relations with China. It’s a practical response to the fact we can’t rely on the US as we once did, and it’s an immediate win for Canadian farmers and fishers.

Yes, there are reasons for caution. But as I explain below, critics like Doug Ford entirely miss the mark.

Canada can’t rely on the US, a country that is trampling on its own democracy at home, and abusing other democracies abroad.

So Carney goes to China, the world’s second largest economy and already Canada’s second largest trading partner in spite of a series of trade disputes. And he resets trade relations in a clear-eyed way. “We take the world as it is - not as we wish it to be.”

To put it simply, he largely resolves an outstanding dispute from the summer of 2024. Trudeau had imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs in lockstep with Biden. China retaliated.

The world has certainly changed since. It now makes no sense at all to march in lockstep with the US at the expense of Canadian farmers and fishers, if it ever did.

Yes, of course there are reasons for caution. Human rights. Authoritarianism. And there are risks considering China’s recent history of weaponizing trade against us. But it’s also true that as we work to double Canada’s non-US exports, China is a piece of that puzzle.

Many Conservative premiers embraced the deal. “Welcome News”. (Newfoundland). “Pleased to see the reduction of tariffs.” (Smith) “A positive day.” (Moe)

But Ford and Poilievre finally found common ground in uneducated bluster. Poilievre tells us the agreement will jeopardize our security and auto jobs. Ford called it a “totally totally unacceptable” “terrible terrible miscalculated decision” and even talked about spy cars.

So let’s actually look at the deal:

China significantly drops its retaliatory tariffs on billions of dollars of agricultural products from Canada, canola seed, lobsters, crabs, peas. Yes, it’s tentative. Yes, the drop from 84% to 15% on canola leaves some room to improve. Yes, pork should be part of the deal too. There’s obviously more work to do, but it can’t be overstated how welcome this is for working farmers and fishers today.

In return, Canada gives up little. China is the world’s largest producer of EVs. We don’t have EV auto manufacturers here to protect.

Canada moves off the 100% EV tariff imposed in the summer of 2024. In its place will be a quota of 49,000 Chinese-made EVs at a much-reduced tariff rate of 6.1%. That quota grows slowly over 5 years.

It’ll mean cheaper prices for Canadian consumers, and it’s an opportunity for potential new investment in Canada’s auto industry.

Ford called it “a flood” of Chinese EVs, except that the quota corresponds to volumes in the 2023 year and represents less than 3% of the Canadian market for new vehicles.

Ford tells us “it’s going to be a big, big problem” for the existing auto manufacturers. Except that half of the quota is reserved for affordable EVs with an import price of $35,000, a car that doesn’t exist in Canada today. Consider that Europe has over 20 EV models selling for less than $40,000 Canadian. Canada has one, barely. And EV adoption is booming everywhere except in North America.

More broadly, the numbers don’t lie: the modest number of EVs Canadians currently buy just aren’t made here in Canada. Hopefully that changes, and that brings us back to the deal.

As American auto manufacturers abandon their Canadian promises, the agreement explicitly emphasizes an expectation that we’ll see Chinese investment through joint ventures led by Canadian companies to create new auto manufacturing careers for Canadian workers.

And it’s all subject to review in three years to gauge progress.

The PM rightly articulated it as “an opportunity for Ontario…for Ontario works…for Canada, done in a controlled way, with a modest start” :

And spy cars? I can’t believe I’m going to quote Danielle Smith, but she’s right: “Canadian security authorities will take any measures necessary to ensure all vehicles and other products sold into Canada post no threat to our nation’s privacy laws or national security interests”

There is the risk, of course, that we’ll piss off the Americans. Ford raised this too, forgetting about his own ad, I guess.

But Trump, for his part, called the deal a “good thing” and said “if you can get a deal with China, you should do that.”

It is true, of course, that not everyone south of the border felt the same way.

Nikki Haley, former US ambassador to the UN, wrote: “Canada cozying up to China to welcome more investment puts all of North America at serious risk.”

I’d phrase it a little differently though: Canada’s effort to reset relations in a modest way with China is a direct and reasonable response to the vicious incompetence of the United States that threatens us all.

The Iranian administration has once again cut off communications to and from its people, shutting down internet and phone access, and violently suppressing any dissent.

This isn’t new. It’s a tactic the regime has repeatedly used when civilian unrest intensifies: to isolate protestors, prevent documentation, and carry out arrests and killings away from public scrutiny.

This time, however, the scale and intensity of the violence and repression appear more severe. We don’t yet know the full extent of what’s happening. But multiple media and human-rights reports already point to at least 2,000 people killed and more than 10,000 detained, and those numbers are almost certainly higher, and still rising.

For many Iranian Canadians, this is not distant news. It is fear for family, friends, and loved ones.

As an MP, I’ve spoken publicly to condemn the regime’s repression and to amplify voices calling for Iranian democracy. I also work alongside an Iranian-Canadian in my constituency office, Sara, and given what’s now at stake, I wanted to share her perspective directly.

Sara: We have seen waves of resistance to the Iranian regime before, from the Green Movement in 2009 to the protests following Mahsa Amini’s death in 2022. This pattern did not begin in 2009 or 2022. Since coming to power in 1979, the Islamic Republic has consistently responded to dissent with repression, through executions, the dismantling of opposition movements, and lethal crackdowns such as those seen during the November 2019 protests. Opposition has persisted, and so has the punishment of those who lead or join it.

What we are witnessing now, however, appears broader, more sustained, and more determined, driven by years of economic collapse, repression, and the absence of accountability.

While the Iranian regime claims solidarity with Palestinians, it simultaneously denies those same fundamental rights to Iranians at home. Freedom, dignity, and safety are not causes that can be selectively defended.

It’s also important to recognize that Iranians are not a monolith. Iran is an incredibly diverse society, and that diversity is reflected in the range of views about what change should look like and how it should happen.

In recent days, debates have intensified within the Iranian diaspora about leadership, opposition figures, and the role of outside powers. Some voices argue for international intervention; others warn, based on the experiences of Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, that foreign military involvement often deepens civilian suffering rather than ending it.

These disagreements are real and deserve to be acknowledged, not flattened or dismissed.

What should not be debated is this:

Peaceful protestors should never be met with lethal force.

Information should never be treated as a weapon.

And human rights shouldn’t be applied selectively.

Canada’s role is not to dictate Iran’s future. That must be determined by Iranians themselves.

But we do have a responsibility to consistently defend civilian protection, access to information, and accountability, wherever those principles are violated. Silence only enables further harm.

We must continue working with like-minded countries to stand with and support the Iranian people.

Bob Rae had a good piece about might making right making a comeback. And Dan Gardner has been spot on about the major rollback of international rules.

Here’s my short take on it, for what it’s worth.

A fake pretense of drugs to impose illegal tariffs one day, and a fake pretense of drugs to oust a dictator the next.

But of course, the pretense was dropped immediately. There is no quiet part anymore.

“We’re going to take back the oil that frankly we should have taken back a long time ago.” - Donald Trump

As former UN Ambassador Bob Rae aptly put it: leaders unhinged from the rule of law and morality pose a threat to us all.

It’s in Canada’s interest when international law is respected. When might makes right, we are at greater risk.

Prime Minister Carney rightly emphasized the importance of respecting the will of the Venezuelan people and of upholding international law, though he also carefully avoided the obvious fact that the US has no intention of doing anything of the sort.

Too many other world leaders similarly offered lukewarm reproach.

We should, of course, be more critical of unilateral, pre-emptive, and unlawful actions undertaken by the “very stable genius” in the White House. Yes, even when it comes to deposing awful dictators who should be held to account on the basis of natural justice.

And yes, for Venezuelans, the outcome here could be a positive one in the end. If, that is, the dictator responsible for countless human rights abuses wasn’t being replaced by one of his cronies. If, that is, free and fair elections take place. Which of course they should, immediately.

But apparently those can wait until the oil starts flowing?

Now, it’s no surprise that the conservative leader offered uncritical congratulations to the President, as if it was “mission accomplished.”

As if he’s completely forgotten the last year of our lives, where we’ve been on the receiving end of threats to our sovereignty. As if he can’t see that the same disregard for any semblance of international order has led to crippling illegal tariffs on important sectors of our economy.

Those applauding should consider the record of unilateral and unlawful US actions and perhaps hold their applause until we see where this all goes.

What next? Greenland apparently. Cuba, Colombia, maybe Mexico. It’s all arbitrary. We should stand in solidarity with Iranian protesters and with Ukraine if we are serious about values and democracy, yet Putin received a warm Trump welcome despite his genocidal war.

It’s obvious enough that international norms mean little to unconstrained American power. Even if it undermines our collective ability to promote democracy and human rights without irony. Even if it gives cover to other strongmen and opportunity for soft power to authoritarian regimes.

And if the MAGA base isn’t a constraint on Trump, then it’s not clear that anything is. As Marjorie Taylor Green put it: “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

But hey, we’re not talking about Epstein anymore right?

Happy new year, everyone.

2025 felt like a decade, and it was nice to close it out with more relaxed time with friends and family. Building a snow fort with the kids. Playing crokinole and euchre. Learning that you need to store vermouth in the fridge. Much needed recharging.

Looking back

A year of successes and frustrations, notably marked by an epic federal political comeback in the spring election to an incredible fall postseason run for the Jay.

Trump’s descent into the old king’s madness continued at great economic cost here at home. Carney thankfully brought a serious contrast to all of that, as we rallied around our flag. And I was back at work to play a constructive accountability role on a range of issues, including Bill C-5, the federal budget, and the Alberta MOU. With some lessons learned along the way.

Looking ahead

I’ll continue to bring honesty to our politics and to push our government to be the best it can be. And with Poilievre likely to win his leadership review later this month, it’s important for us to be at our best.

I’ll also aim to see through some work already underway, including holding digital platforms accountable, legislation to better protect kids online, a larger conversation around generational fairness and income security, and more.

The biggest question mark for 2026 is the Ontario Liberal leadership race.

It’s still a huge opportunity to make a difference, which is why I ran the last time. And it is past time for change. We shouldn’t accept the Ford government’s obvious mediocrity, incompetence, and corruption, even if it’s folksy.

We don’t know the timeline of the race yet, but we’re now building a team. One that is ready to run, win, and govern together.

Everything depends on the strength of that team, including the decision to join the race when it’s officially called.

So join our growing team. Help rebuild our politics in Ontario. And encourage others to do the same.

The answer, as always, is participation.

Join our growing team

On this episode of Uncommons, I’m joined by Ava Hill and Willie Littlechild, two incredible Indigenous leaders. We talk about the state of reconciliation and what real partnership could and should look like, with a specific focus on their work to advance Indigenous participation in sport.

Ava Hill is a former Six Nations Chief, and Willie Littlechild is a former TRC commissioner, former MP, and residential school survivor.

They also touch on Raffi’s advocacy against fascism, the power of music in activism, the urgent need for climate mobilization, protecting children from digital harm and his belief in having courage to speak out and be engaged in democracy.

Raffi is a global troubadour, children’s entertainer, author and founder of the Raffi Foundation for Child Honouring. Called by the Washington Post as “the most popular children’s singers in the English-speaking world”.

And it’s generated wildly different reactions.

Here are my thoughts on what the MOU means, for better and worse. There are merits to collaboration, of course. At the same time, talk of a grand bargain feels like déjà vu, and this government needs a clear-eyed ambitious climate plan.

You can read the full text below.

It’s my own honest assessment (seems fitting after this article in The Walrus), but worth acknowledging there have been a range of different takes so far. The National Observer’s Max Fawcett, Evan Scrimshaw at Unscripted, and Clean Prosperity’s Michael Bernstein all offer more positive takes. Meanwhile, it not only prompted Guilbeault’s resignation, but those of two top climate advisers on our Net Zero Advisory Body. And former Minister (and recent podcast guest) Catherine McKenna has reinforced these concerns too.

Recent Uncommons episodes

Best-selling author, historian, and progressive activist Rutger Bregman joined me to talk about his new book Moral Ambition (and new school of the same name), a call to arms to stop wasting one’s talent and dedicate oneself to solving big challenges.

Award-winning journalist and author Tanya Talaga joined us for a live event focused on her recent book The Knowing. It’s a deeply personal story in which she traces her own family’s history, and it is a story of Indigenous people in Canada, injustice, reclamation, and outlasting.

Upcoming guests include the amazing troubadour Raffi and Indigenous leaders Ava Hill and Willie Littlechild. If you have suggestions for guests or topics, you can always reach us at info@beynate.ca

In case you missed it

I wrote about the reaction to my budget reaction here, and reflected on the role of MPs and reasonable disagreement in our politics.

And The Walrus also wrote a profile about our approach to politics, highlighting the benefits and challenges of authenticity and honesty as we work to make our politics about ideas. And no, not a usual headline/question for a politician ha.

Grand bargains, déjà vu, and a review of the Canada-Alberta MOU

What should we make of the memorandum of understanding between Canada’s Prime Minister and Alberta’s Premier?

Well, it’s certainly caused wildly different reactions across the spectrum. Danielle Smith was booed by her base at mere mention of the MOU, and environmental champion Steven Guilbeault resigned his cabinet post based on his strong opposition to the deal.

So what does the deal do exactly?

On the one hand, at a high level, it’s a collaborative document in a moment when national unity is critical. It’s an attempt by the feds to buy political peace with Alberta, to address a sense of western alienation, to diversify our conventional energy exports from the US, and yes, to secure a less confrontational path to some climate action.

But less action than one might have expected, if we’re being honest. We gave up a lot - probably too much - for any short-term peace. It represents climate backsliding and a distraction from the ambition we need.

In fairness, let’s start at the start. The MOU’s preamble tells us that Alberta and Canada are “committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050”, establishing Canada as a global energy superpower,” and respecting Indigenous rights-holders.

It then sets out a series of mostly laudable objectives, from cutting red tape to providing economic opportunities for Indigenous communities. The main and obvious tension is the goal to “increase production of Alberta oil and gas while simultaneously reaching carbon neutrality.”

Is it possible? Well, in theory, maybe.

The idea is that so long as the world relies on fossil fuels, Canada should reap the economic benefits. And there’s a logic to that, of course. Better us than the United States or other countries with poor human rights records.

But it’s also true that it’ll be a real challenge to make the intensity of oil sands emissions globally competitive for those final barrels. Knowing this, the MOU ties a potential new pipeline through northern BC directly to a massive carbon capture and storage project. The downside is that it’ll cost billions in public subsidies, and experts call the tech “expensive, unproven” and a distraction “from global decarbonization efforts while allowing the oil and gas industry to conduct business as usual.”

The truth is that in a future net zero world, there isn’t a strong business case for new fossil fuel infrastructure today. The oil and gas sector is already our largest single source of emissions, and a significant expansion of production is likely only viable in a non-net zero world.

Which seems to be what the MOU is betting on because that’s what it commits to - a significant expansion of oil production and export of at least one million barrels a day above the status quo of over 4 million barrels, through a combination of a new potential pipeline and expanded capacity on Trans Mountain. The only trans rights Premier Smith seems to support.

Still, it’s fair for the private sector to bet on that world, and the feds have said that there won’t be public money for any new pipeline. That’s the right answer and we should ensure that it doesn’t happen indirectly through loan guarantees.

It’s also fair for governments to approve weak private sector bets so long as the environment and Indigenous rights are protected and respected. Which is where the proposal will likely fall down, in the face of BC and Indigenous opposition.

At the same time, while companies are free to bet on runaway climate change, it’s incumbent on governments to take ambitious climate action seriously. Does the MOU get us there? Not nearly enough.

On the positive side of the ledger, Alberta commits to the construction of large transmission interties with BC and Saskatchewan. That’s good.

Alberta also commits to an industrial carbon price of $130 per tonne and methane rules in exchange for Canada doing away with the oil and gas emissions cap and giving Alberta a carve out from national clean electricity regulations.

The industrial price of $130 is well below the $170 federal benchmark and the methane regs have been ready to implement for a year now, with a view to slashing 75% of emissions by 2030. That timeline’s now pushed back to 2035.

The Canadian Climate Institute warned that the MOU could trigger a race to the bottom on climate policy and the Pembina Institute called it a “missed opportunity” opening the door to delayed climate action and investor uncertainty.

It’s hard to understand where on the path to net zero all of this leaves us. After dropping the consumer carbon price, winding down Greener Homes, and pausing the EV mandate, there were already gaps in our plan that hadn’t been made up.

And now there are additional gaps to fill. So, what’s the plan? We can’t manage what we don’t measure.

And yes, I understand that the instinct for someone who had a front row seat to Brexit is to work together, to get buy-in from provinces, to establish a Grand Bargain as it were. Of course it is.

But we gave up a lot - probably too much - for whatever short-term political peace we’ll benefit from. After all, the last grand bargain was the $35 billion Trans Mountain pipeline in exchange for Alberta’s commitment to carbon pricing and climate action, in part to address western alienation.

And almost a decade later, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Except with even less time to act with the sense of urgency required to build the sustainable future we deserve.

The energy transition will happen with or without us, and we can’t afford any distractions. We need a clear-eyed ambitious plan for net zero to become a clean energy superpower and because the carbon budget won’t balance itself.

As a wise former central banker once wrote: “Value in the market is increasingly determining the values of society. We are living Oscar Wilde’s aphorism - knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing - at incalculable costs to our society, to future generations and to our planet.”

Or take this from our platform in the spring: “as we build the strongest economy in the G7, we cannot lose sight of the impact our choices will have on our children and grandchildren; we must always be mindful of long-term sustainability and the kind of economy and environment we want for them.”

Words and promises we would do well to heed.

Rutger joins me in this episode to explore how his ideas on moral ambition connect to social change, the big challenges we need your talent to solve, and what he hopes to accomplish with his new school.

She’s also a constituent, which is how we happened to connect again recently when she was hosted by the House Speaker together with other finalists for the Shaugnessy Cohen Prize in political writing.

Talaga joined me a number of years ago at the Fox Theatre to talk about her 2017 award-winning book Seven Fallen Feathers.

This conversation focuses on her recent book, The Knowing. It is a deeply personal story in which she traces her own family’s history, and it is a story of Indigenous people in Canada, injustice, reclamation, and outlasting.

With her own background one of both Anishinaabe and Polish descent, Talaga writes: “From the legacies of these dual branches of genocide, one on Turtle Island and one far off in eastern Europe - comes my knowing.”

I recommend reading the book and you can also watch her docuseries at CBC Gem.

• Events: join our local holiday party on Tuesday December 16 at The Local and our NY Levee with MPP Mary-Margaret McMahon on Sunday January 11 at The Naval Club

• Canada Summer Jobs: if you’re an employer who can hire a young person this summer, the deadline to apply for a federal grant is December 11

• Local calendar: if you’ve got a good photo of Beaches-East York, email it to info@beynate.ca and we’ll do our best to include it (with attribution) in our 2026 calendar

After 10 years of political life, it’s still possible to be surprised.

For example, I was surprised that our budget reaction video earned as much coverage as it did.

I just didn’t think the occasional (and measured!) disagreement from here in Beaches-East York was still national news. Although being quoted out of context by the Conservative leader at a strange press conference (not surprising) no doubt helped.

At that same presser, Poilievre imagined turmoil in the Liberal caucus, tried to pronounce my name correctly, and railed at the media (also not surprising). It was all deflection from his own leadership troubles, with no reflection on how he leads.

Of course, a little self-reflection never hurt anyone.

Our budget reaction video was yet another moment in my political life where I was deemed “not a team player” by some. It prompted pundit handwringing about keeping the disagreement in caucus. And it was selectively edited such that it became the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

I even joined Power & Politics to respond to the silliness of the week.

At the same time, I received a lot of positive feedback from constituents, The Star’s Althia Raj argued that Poilievre could learn something in welcoming reasonable disagreement, and the Globe’s Robyn Urback made the case for more empowered MPs.

As I told Raj, not only did Prime Minister Carney welcome my specific budget response as constructive, but welcoming thoughtful disagreement more broadly is both good politics and policy.

Overwhelmingly, people locally want someone who’s going to stand up and speak their mind, show principles and a sense of honesty and integrity. And if you’re a strong leader who cares about ideas, you’ll only get better ideas and policies when you welcome that kind of challenge function.

And yes, some MPs and pundits will maintain a different view, still insisting that message discipline is everything and any disagreement should be behind closed doors.

Unsurprisingly, my view is different. As I’ve written before, so long as that disagreement is respectful, reasonable, and focused on ideas there is no reason to limit it to a private conversation with a minister or the confines of our caucus walls. As Liberal MPs, our responsibility is not only to raise issues forcefully in caucus, but to participate in and help shape a broader public debate.

Now, this may all seem like doubling down on a particular view of the role of an MP, what professor Alex Marland (in his recent book) describes as “a form of principled dissent that is increasingly rare in Canadian politics.”

But while I’m not going to change how I see the role of an MP, that doesn’t mean I always get every call right in that role. In reflecting on the last ten years, my least effective moments have been when I reacted with personal frustration and forgotten that central premise: that our disagreement should be focused on ideas.

Honesty and authenticity remain essential and we can’t shy away from sharing ideas simply because they might be taken out of context by bad faith political attacks. But we can avoid making it personal when our politics should be about ideas.

Share

Subscribe now