Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)
Status
Defeated, as of Sept. 25, 2024 (This bill did not become law.)
Summary
This is from the published bill.
This enactment requires the Minister of Finance to develop a national framework to provide all persons over the age of 17 in Canada with access to a guaranteed livable basic income. It also provides for reporting requirements with respect to the framework.
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below.
Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-223 proposes a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income for all persons over 17 residing in Canada, including temporary workers, permanent residents, and refugee claimants. The framework aims to ensure that individuals have sufficient income to meet their basic needs, and would not decrease existing services or benefits related to health or disability. It also emphasizes that participation in education, training, or the labor market would not be required to qualify for the basic income.
NDP
Supports national framework: The NDP supports Bill C-223, which aims to create a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, arguing that it addresses critical issues and should be sent to committee for consideration.
Current system inadequate: The NDP argues that Canada's existing social safety net, including programs like the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors and the new disability benefit, are insufficient to ensure a dignified standard of living for all Canadians. The party advocates for income guarantees that allow everyone in Canada to live with dignity.
Poverty as a violation: The NDP views poverty as a violent human rights violation that contributes to mental health crises and broader societal problems. They see a guaranteed livable basic income as a means to uphold human rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights, and ensure that no one has to live in poverty.
Challenges Conservative myths: The NDP challenges the Conservative's assertion that a guaranteed livable basic income would discourage work, citing evidence from studies and existing programs that demonstrate the opposite. They argue that people thrive in opportunity and stability, which a basic income would provide.
Conservative
Against the basic income framework: Conservative members expressed concerns about the proposed national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, with some stating they would vote against the bill. They raised issues regarding the bill's potential costs, its lack of a budget, and its encroachment on provincial jurisdiction, especially in areas like healthcare and social supports.
Productivity and economic concerns: The Conservative speakers highlighted Canada's declining productivity and lack of economic growth as major issues. They argued that focusing on economic growth and investment is essential to create wealth and prosperity, and that a guaranteed basic income could disincentivize work and further strain the economy.
Targeted support versus universal programs: Some members expressed a preference for targeted programs aimed at helping those with the most severe needs, such as persons with disabilities, rather than universal programs that distribute money to everyone regardless of their situation. They worried that universal programs could divert resources away from those who need them most.
Federalism and provincial jurisdiction: Several Conservative MPs raised concerns about the federal government overstepping into areas of provincial jurisdiction, particularly concerning healthcare and social programs. They argued that each province should have the autonomy to determine its own programs and standards without federal interference.
Bloc
Against the bill: The Bloc opposes Bill C-223, arguing that social safety nets and social programs are provincial, not federal, responsibilities. They believe a federal guaranteed minimum income would infringe upon Quebec's jurisdiction and potentially dismantle its robust social programs.
Duplication of services: Implementing a guaranteed livable minimum income at the federal level would be like transferring Quebec's social programs to Canada, which is against the Constitution and not beneficial. Quebec already has several social safety net programs and universal programs.
Fiscal concerns: The Bloc expresses concern that the federal government cannot afford such a measure given current economic conditions, rising inflation, and large deficits. They are skeptical of the federal government's ability to fulfill existing transfer agreements on health, housing, and other areas.
Targeted assistance preferred: The Bloc favors targeted government assistance paired with existing social programs rather than a universal basic income. They cite a British Columbia report indicating that updating existing programs would be more cost-effective than implementing a guaranteed minimum income for everyone.
Liberal
Open to further discussion: Liberal members are generally open to discussing the idea of a guaranteed basic income. They recognize the need to address poverty and support vulnerable populations but are not yet convinced of the feasibility or readiness of Canada to implement a full universal basic income program.
Prefer targeted programs: There is a preference for targeted programs, such as the Canada Child Benefit, OAS increases, and the new dental and disability programs, that have demonstrated success in reducing poverty rates and providing specific support to those in need. Members are concerned about how a universal basic income might affect these existing, effective programs.
Committee study is worthwhile: A study at the committee level would allow for a more thorough examination of the potential benefits and drawbacks of a basic minimum income, including questions of cost, fairness, and distribution.
Province of Ontario pilot: Members referenced the basic income pilot project in Ontario. The cancellation of the project raised questions about the long-term commitment to such programs and the potential negative impact on participants.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑223 under Private Members' Business.
Links & Sharing
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
