Debates of May 8th, 2024

National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the hon. member.

The rustling of papers on the hon. member's desk is bothering the interpreters. I must advise her of this because it is quite loud. If she could try to avoid making such loud noises, that would be wonderful.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is very important and you did the right thing. We have to protect our interpreters, who perform such essential work in the House.

There is one problem with my colleague's proposal: Social safety nets and social programs are not Ottawa's responsibility. They fall under provincial jurisdiction. One basic principle of a guaranteed minimum income is that it would replace other social programs, thereby preventing vulnerable people from falling through the cracks, which we do not want.

What social programs would basic income replace? Considering that all the social programs are in Quebec, and that our social programs are strong, I do not think that we are debating this issue in the right place. In Quebec, for example, we have other social safety net programs apart from EI. EI comes under federal jurisdiction because Quebec constitutionally agreed to give it up. I think that was a mistake. It should be repatriated, but how we repatriate programs under the Constitution is another matter.

Most of the programs are Quebec initiatives. I am talking about the social solidarity program, the occupational health and safety program, the Quebec pension plan, the child benefit and the disability benefit. Since 2023, in addition to the social solidarity program, Quebec has had a basic income program to help people who have severe employment restrictions. It may not be a livable income, but it is a very important social safety net program.

I am going to talk about our universal early childhood education services program in Quebec. It is a social safety net program for everyone. For families or parents who have social solidarity income, there is no contribution. From an equity perspective, we want to ensure that we have a significant social solidarity safety net and major social programs. In Quebec, we have shown that social programs help support the most vulnerable, those we need to help.

All this to say that these social programs belong to Quebec. It is constitutional. Adding a guaranteed livable minimum income at the federal level is like saying that Quebec's social programs are being transferred to Canada. That is a no. That would be against the Constitution and I do not think it would be beneficial. Let me explain.

One of the programs that is part of Canada's social safety net is employment insurance, although that is no longer a true social safety net. It has become an insurance plan that six out of 10 workers cannot access, despite having paid into it, and one that self-employed workers cannot access. In addition, people who work in atypical jobs, primarily young people and women, cannot access it because of its strict criteria. When it was first introduced, it was meant to be a social safety net against the worst thing that can happen, that is, losing a job. I think we need to strengthen the social safety net and its programs.

We talked about the guaranteed income supplement. The GIS is the social assistance component of old age security. The federal government ranks poorly among OECD countries when it comes to support for seniors, and to compensate for the low incomes of some OAS recipients, they receive the GIS. Ideally, the government should not need to provide the GIS. Instead, it should guarantee seniors a universal OAS benefit starting at age 65 that would bolster their incomes and raise their standard of living. However, these are not the choices the government has made, nor are they matters of federal jurisdiction.

Other social safety nets such as health and education are also the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Back in the day, the federal government, which has the spending power, signed a health pact with Saskatchewan, Quebec and all the provinces. The provinces had passed health legislation guaranteeing free universal medical and hospital care. Under the pact, the federal government was to fund 50% of the costs of the health care system. We are a long way away from that. We have gotten further away over time. These days, the government covers barely 25% of these costs.

Are we going to trust the federal government to manage the social safety net programs that Quebec has adopted? The answer is no. It is clear from the examples I gave that, on the contrary, the government is making people poorer. That is what is happening with the new disability benefit. When the budget was tabled, we were shocked to see that the intended objective would not be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired. In fact, I gave her an extra 30 seconds.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are few opportunities to rise in the House that give me the type of honour that has been bestowed upon me to speak alongside my incredible colleague and seatmate, the member for Winnipeg Centre, on this particular issue this evening. There are few topics I could speak to that connect more with the material conditions for people in Hamilton Centre.

New Democrats come to our politics honestly. We come to them by viewing, watching and observing, and many times experiencing, the struggles, the poverty and the abject conditions that people face, the legislated poverty. Watching people suffer in my city has radicalized me over the years because there is, for some reason, a notion that it has always been done this way. There is no alternative. It always has to be this way. We have to be in this zero-sum economy of winners and losers, and the concentration of wealth and prosperity in this country always has to be distributed to the top.

We can look at what is before us in the bill for a guaranteed basic livable income. We heard something from even the Conservative members who spoke on the bill. They admit that there is an opportunity to put this bill to second reading, and to begin to have a discussion about how we can lift people truly out of poverty and raise the material conditions for people. This is not a new topic. I will share with members that in Hamilton, much like the material conditions that exist for people in Winnipeg Centre, people continue to struggle. Often we are the canaries in the coal mine. When city centres like Toronto catch a cold, we suffer the most.

I will share with members something that goes back to 2009. We first started the social assistance review, and I was in rooms with people such as Tom Cooper from the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction. It was led by people with lived experience and included the campaign for adequate welfare and disability, and people like Elizabeth McGuire, and Margie and Dan Gould, folks who were legislated to live in poverty.

In talking about that, let us put things into perspective for a moment. Forget about the ultrawealthy. We can barely conceive, in this country, what a billion dollars is. However, there is something that people who are watching tonight can understand, and it is clear. Currently, in this province, Ontario Works is $733 a month. That is $733 a month to live in this economy.

When we talk about the cost of living, what we are talking about is the crisis of capitalism, runaway profits and the inability for people to meet their basic needs. We are talking about the crumbling of the mythology of a liberal economy where people should be able to work hard, go to school, get good jobs and take care of their families. That is no more.

Quite rightly, my compassionate colleague refocused us with the understanding that people's worth and value ought not be tied to their employment, their productivity and our GDP. Humans have an inherent worth, regardless of how they are utilized within a capitalist economy.

I will share that people who are living right now on ODSP, sentenced to live in poverty, are receiving $1,300 a month. How can anybody, anywhere, with a straight face, say that that is enough for people to survive? The Liberal government has the audacity to suggest that an additional $200 a month would cover it.

There are a lot of people who think that this is the only way that things can be done and there is no alternative. The member for Winnipeg Centre brought up the example of Dauphin. Right in Hamilton, not too long ago, there was a provincial Liberal government that put in a basic income. That is not to be confused with the guaranteed livable income. The basic income project was, in fact, legislated poverty because it still sentenced people to live below the low-income cut off.

I find it abhorrent that the Liberal member for Winnipeg North stood up and completely dismissed this, when 80% of the Liberals' membership, in their last policy convention, stood for this. The Liberals continue to pay lip service to lifting people out of poverty, while standing up and having the audacity to dismiss a real discussion about this at second reading. I say shame to the member.

Let us talk about the Hamilton basic income pilot project that was brought up. I want people to take a moment to humanize the issue. There was some incredible work done by Jessie Golem, who put together the “Humans of Basic Income” photography series. She profiled people like my friend Tim Button, as well as my dearly missed comrade Michael Hampson, a disability justice advocate who spoke to this pilot project in Hamilton. It was a project that granted people a meagre $17,000 a year, which is still well below the low-income cut-off. About that little lift up, he said, “It changed my life. Gave me back my dignity and faith in my community. ODSP chained me in poverty, causing high stress and poor nutritional opportunities.” He said that basic income gave healing to the recipients.

This was a man we sorely lost during COVID. Today, I rise to honour him and to lift up his voice. I rise to lift up all the voices of the Hamiltonians who, for a brief moment, were given a bit of life and dignity. By having this support, people could then pursue the education options they wanted, have the opportunity to transition into jobs and, yes, flee gender-based violence. That is what we are talking about in this moment. That is why this bill is so important.

For anybody who would not have the courage to at least allow this to go to second reading and have the discussion, I want them to think about those humans of basic income. I want them to think about and look at the encampments they have in their communities. We talk about the runaway crisis of capitalism, the way the profiteering is happening and the corporate concentration of wealth. There is prosperity in this country.

Right now it is not a supply issue with housing. We have condos dotting the skies, cranes going up every day, and year after year a record number of building permits. We also have record numbers of people sentenced to live in tents in this country. In this country, New Democrats believe that everybody has the right to dignity, safety, housing, food, the necessities of life, education and opportunity.

The audacity of the liberalism that speaks about the middle-class and those working hard to join them, as though what they lie about is that the most hard-working people in this country are the ones sentenced to live in low-income, in subsistence and in deep poverty, is what we are here to change today.

Madam Speaker, before I conclude, I am going to go ahead and beat my Liberal colleagues to the punch. I withdraw the term “lie”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is one motion and amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-59. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting the short title.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, what the Conservatives are doing is having a debate about the deleting of the short title of the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. member can raise that during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has the floor.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise and represent the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot in the House of Commons.

Today, I do so to enter into debate on what is, ironically, the fall fiscal update. Many people watching must be wondering why we are debating, come springtime, a bill that was tabled in the fall. I had that same question, but it simply comes down to this. While the Liberals tabled their budget a couple of weeks ago, which I will talk about here in a moment, we are still debating the fall economic statement in the spring.

That is a clear example of the utter incompetence that we have seen from the Liberal Party. The Liberals cannot manage their legislative agenda, and they certainly cannot manage the economy. We are seeing debt spiralling out of control. We are seeing pain and suffering in people's lives. We are seeing pain and suffering in the lives of so many Canadians. That is a perfect example.

The reason I wanted to start my speech emphasizing that is that, when folks watch this, they will look on the screen to see that it has “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023” written across it. Earlier today we were also debating the budget implementation act, 2024, highlighting the true incompetence and inability of the Prime Minister, the Liberals and their coalition partners who prop them up. Come storm or sunny day, their coalition partners are always there to stand with the Liberals, propping up their corruption, their incompetence and, ultimately, the pain that Canadians are feeling from coast to coast. When it comes to the true root of what I hear as I travel across my constituency, related to both the fall economic statement and the budget that was tabled here a couple of weeks ago, there is crime and chaos in our streets and gravel roads.

It is interesting. I am sure many MPs and, hopefully, some Liberal and NDP members as well, keep something similar to what I affectionately refer to as my “call list”. It can take some time to get through that call list, as there are a whole host of people who want to speak to me out of the 110,000 or so people I represent. I find it incredibly important to speak with individuals who are—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am questioning the relevance of the member's speech to the motion that was put forward to delete the short title of the act. I am having a hard time trying to connect it to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Obviously, the hon. member recognizes that there is some leeway during speeches. However, I do want to remind members to make sure that they are speaking to the bill that is before the House. Their speeches should be in reference to that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it so interesting that, in the middle of my speaking about talking with my constituents, the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill would suggest that somehow the pain that Canadians are experiencing is not relevant to the discussion in this place. It is that ignorance, that being so utterly out of touch, that makes it almost difficult to find words. That is why I would suggest that she take notes when it comes to what I am describing about the need to speak to our constituents.

The very basis of why this place exists is that we are the representatives of the people, rather than elites imposing their vision upon a populace who do not have a say. Those are days gone by. While that may be the pursuit of that member and so many members of the Liberal Party, that is an absolutely unacceptable attitude to have in the House of Commons, a place where the common people should have a voice.

I would suggest—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the hon. member that his comments were almost speaking to the member herself. I want to remind members that they can debate government policies and about the party itself, but they should not attack individual members. Therefore, I want to caution the hon. member on some of the comments he made because they were attacking the individual member. I am assuming that is why the hon. member was also rising on a point of order at the same time as I was.

I would caution members to make sure they speak to the bill, which is pretty wide, as I just did another check on that. I also want to remind the member that it should not be an attack on individuals themselves, but that it should be on either the government's policies or the government's actions.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that the member did attack me. It was just not veering in that direction. He made comments about my person and assumptions about what my motivation was. Therefore, I would ask the Speaker to ask him to retract those statements about me.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I ask the hon. member to retract his statements.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, on that same point of order, my colleague was simply pointing out the government's disdain for the general public. This was not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will indicate to the hon. member that I heard the comments; there were two of them, so I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw those comments so that he can continue on with his speech.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would request some clarity.

I heard the comments, as I was listening very closely. The member did comment on the knowledge of the individual and did use the word “ignorance”, which is not unparliamentary. I think you will find that Hansard is littered with the word, but I did not hear a word that was unparliamentary, so I would ask—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did catch it the first time. However, I thought the hon. member was changing course, but there was a second time as well. Therefore, I am asking the hon. member to withdraw his comments so that he can go on with his speech.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comments that have caused so much offence in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot can continue with his speech.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that the last number of minutes is just a demonstration of the chaos and the inability of that Liberal government to accomplish anything.

I would suggest that every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the New Democratic Party do what our jobs are, and that is to speak to Canadians. When we speak to Canadians, we hear stories of pain. We hear stories of uncertainty. We hear stories where vehicles are being stolen from driveways, whether that be urban driveways in downtown Toronto or whether that be gravel roads in rural Canada. The crime, the chaos and the corruption is becoming too much for so many Canadians to handle.

What is interesting, as those Liberals try to interrupt and cast aspersions upon the important debates that we need to have in this place, is that they forget the fact that we serve, and that we need to serve, the people; they forget that. What is so unfortunate are the consequences of their forgetting that simple fact. We may disagree on policies, and I have said this before, and I will say it again, but there was a time when we could look at the government in power and understand that we may not agree with all of its policies, but we still had respect for the institutions and for the offices that those individuals held. Increasingly, I am hearing from constituents who have lost respect for the institutions. They do not trust not only the Prime Minister but also the office that he holds and the direction in which the Liberal government is leading the country. Canadians are suffering, Canadians are hurting, and I hear it constantly.

I mentioned my call list, and as I was preparing for this speech, I was scrolling through that call list. Members will understand my passion when I have heard from so many Canadians who are hurting so desperately, in need of relief, in need of hope, in need of somebody who can provide leadership in this country. However, instead, they have a government that intends to divide, a government that intends to distract and a government that, instead of being responsible, is the definition of irresponsible. The passion that I and so many of my Conservative colleagues express, is that of amplifying the voices of Canadians who have been forgotten by the Liberals and the New Democrats, who have abandoned the very basis of what it should mean to be a member of Parliament.

When we look at the budget, and similar in frame to that when we see the fall economic statement, we see that the Liberals show that there is not a responsible path back to spending within its means. We see the consequences of that. It is not just adding a few extra bonds that the Bank of Canada has to figure out. Those are complicated financial mechanisms that so many do not understand the specifics of. However, when it comes down to it, the consequence is that it raises costs. It is the same thing with the high tax agenda, which those members perpetuate. It is raising costs for Canadians.

We hear so much about how the Liberals support quadrupling the carbon tax, increasing taxes at every turn, yet the consequence of that is Canadians are paying more, and they are hurting as a result. We see that there has been a complete and utter abandonment of common sense within this place, and the result is that the country is moving in a direction that Canadians certainly did not vote for.

It is interesting that, when I travel across the country, like so many MPs, whether it is through airports in my commute or whether it is through the messages we get from folks who watch the proceedings in this place, we increasingly hear, including from some individuals who shared how they voted Liberal or New Democrat in the past, that they will not do it again because they see that what they were told is not what is being offered. The clear proof of that is exactly what we have before us in both the fall economic statement and in the budget that was debated earlier today.

There has been this very interesting trend, as of late, where the NDP is criticizing its coalition confidence and supply partners over there, yet it has said that it will continue to prop up the crime, corruption, chaos and out-of-control spending.

We see how the Prime Minister seems to be quick to point out some challenges the country is facing. What is interesting is that he fails to acknowledge that, for nearly nine years, he has been the captain of the ship. What is interesting, to use and further that ship analogy for just a moment longer, is the fact that when a captain starts steering a ship, what may be a small course correction in the beginning can result in massive pain and in being directionless as the ship continues to sail on.

When one does not take responsibility for the maintenance of that ship, it begins to fall apart. While the captain, standing at the wheel, can blame everybody but himself, the buck stops at the top. The buck stops with the one who is in charge. What is so interesting is that the Prime Minister has, as of late, had revelations that Canadians are hurting. I agree with him on that, but here is the reality. It is the policies of that NDP-Liberal coalition that have caused so much hurt.

Often we hear the other side, and many Canadians, ask what the Conservatives would do differently. We have a record that we can be proud of, shepherding the country through incredible financial difficulties while understanding fiscal responsibility. We have so much potential that exists, in terms of the ability and the hope of the future of the country.

I look forward to being able to respond to some questions here because when it comes to the future of our country, the future is bright, but it seems that the solution needs to include getting rid—