Bill C-223

National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act

An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income

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.

National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved that Bill C-223, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support Bill C-223, an act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. This bill, in fact, addresses many of the critical issues that we are facing today, and I hope my colleagues will join the NDP in voting in favour of this bill and sending it to committee for consideration.

Before I go on, I would like to remind all of my colleagues in the House, across party lines, that every single party has committed to implementing all 231 calls for justice at the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. One of the key calls for justice that is being advocated to end the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls is call for justice 4.5 to put in place a guaranteed income for indigenous peoples and for all other Canadians. My bill is merely heeding that call, particularly in support of ending gender-based violence for all people, including indigenous women.

This bill is essential because we know that Canada's current social safety net has become totally inadequate. I will give a couple of examples. The guaranteed income supplement for seniors is an income guarantee that is not livable. As we hear disability advocates lobby government across the country with the new disability benefit, once again, what is required to live in dignity is not being provided.

We have income guarantees in this country. My bill is actually not offering up a new idea. What my bill would do, however, along with over 100,000 advocates across the country, is urge elected officials to ensure that everybody in Canada has what they need to live in dignity, and that is not happening. According to a recent study by Statistics Canada, one in 10 people lives in poverty in Canada as of last year. We have also seen a disturbing rise in child poverty in recent years. Some of the poorest children in this country, in an urban centre, live in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, and even though we have been talking about how to lift people up in Canada, nobody has put anything on the table that achieves it beyond cheap political sound bites.

Ed Broadbent, in 1989, passed a motion to end child poverty by the year 2000. However, here we are with piecemeal approaches to deal with poverty that contributes directly to a gender-based violence crisis that has been noted in some urban centres as an epidemic. We talk about families struggling to buy food. In 1989, Ed Broadbent called for the eradication of poverty in the year 2000. We are now in the year 2024 and inequality is increasing, as we see a growing disparity between the ultrarich and those who are barely making ends meet, if they are.

We are seeing a rise, for the first time, in people becoming unhoused. Families are rolling onto the streets. Why? It is not that we do not have a solution that has been studied, as I will speak to, but it is that members of Parliament have not joined in unity and political will to uphold human rights in this country, to uphold our Canadian Charter of Rights and to ensure that nobody has to live in poverty.

Poverty is something I have called one of the most violent human rights violations. If we want to talk about a mental health crisis in this country, we have one. I can tell members that when we do not provide people with their basic human rights, such as housing, as my colleague from Nunavut brought up today, access to clean drinking water, food security or the ability to know that the next day one would be able to survive, that is bad for one's mental health. It is guised in the House, as I hear lately, as this visceral, cruel rhetoric around people struggling, particularly those with addictions, and around poor-bashing, bashing people who are already down instead of talking about comprehensive solutions to lift people up.

It is for these reasons, for the things that I see every day on the streets of Winnipeg Centre and around the country, for the wonderful people who surround me, for the human beings living in encampments and are my constituents, whom I visit, have relationships with and have respect for, I put forward this bill. If we are going to complain about people living in encampments and about people struggling with mental health, if we are going to talk about issues around ending gender-based violence, I do not want to hear about it in this place anymore, unless people are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that people can live in dignity.

In the case of violence, should people choose to leave, they should have the financial resources to do so. They should have a guaranteed livable basic income in addition to other programs and supports meant to meet specific and special needs as my bill stipulates, such as affordable housing with rent geared to income and extra benefits for persons with disabilities so that they have what they need to pay for extra costs, for medications and for things to help them physically should they need them.

I am offering us an opportunity to do the right thing and lift people out of poverty, including the number of children in care in my riding. They age out of care and, at age 18, get dropped off at the Salvation Army without any income or housing, and we wonder why things are the way they are today.

Then I have to listen to Conservatives, even though as a teacher, I know that families and children have been struggling with hunger longer than the last 10 years. I know that families have had housing insecurity, longer than the last 10 years, that has been made worse by Conservative and by Liberal governments that have failed to invest in affordable social housing with rent geared to income and that have failed to provide people with income guarantees that allow them to live in dignity.

We can do better. That is why I put forward this bill. For anybody over the age of 17, including students, refugee claimants, temporary foreign migrant workers, kids who would age out of care into income insecurity and without housing, and any seniors in my riding who are currently on the verge of being houseless, it would provide them what they need, especially for women.

Many seniors who worked in the unpaid care economy and who do not have pensions cannot live off what they get from the guaranteed income supplement. Is this how we want seniors to live in this country? Is this how we want children to live in this country? Is this how we want the disability community to live in this country? We turn a blind eye to human rights violations, turn a blind eye to gender-based violence and turn a blind eye to ageism, targeting primarily women. We do not have to. A lot of people say this is going to cost a lot of money, so why implement a guaranteed livable basic income? We have inflation right now. It is out of control.

Let us talk about the high cost of poverty. I want to talk about, specifically, the Dauphin study in Manitoba that an NDP government put forward in the 1980s. What they found was that folks who participated in the program had higher rates of graduation and their mental health improved. In fact, although there were a lot of myths, which have not ever been proven by research, that people stopped working, what they found was that they saved in health care costs. What they found was they saved costs by not having to provide what was needed to support good mental health, which includes ensuring that people have what they need to live in dignity.

In research, a lot of the myths around guaranteed incomes do not add up. In fact, the Government of Ontario, in 2017, launched a basic income pilot that provided 4,000 low-income people with cash transfers to help with their cost of living. Observers found that work placements and community involvement actually increased, not decreased. School retention improved. Health outcomes, especially mental health, were more positive, as reported by program recipients, affirming the findings from the study in Dauphin in the 1980s.

It is not like Canada would be the first. In fact, there are countries around the world that have implemented a guaranteed livable basic income, where people feel the happiest, and, in fact, those countries have growing economies.

I do not want to hear in the House about the cost of living. I am tired of hearing poor bashing and bashing people with addictions in the most grotesque, pathologizing and stereotyping terms. I am so tired of governments talking about lifting people up when we have something before us that is a good economic policy and, in fact, is a cost saver.

If we do not have the political will to implement a guaranteed livable basic income, I question our commitment as parliamentarians to eradicating poverty in this country. I question our commitment as parliamentarians to doing what pretty much every single women's organization that deals with violence has stated very clearly, and I say “pretty much” because I have not talked to every one. We need a guaranteed livable basic income now.

It is through that, through respecting our charter and through respecting human rights, we will build a better country for all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware, but I was actually elected to the Manitoba legislature back in 1988 and had the opportunity to experience both a provincial Conservative government as well as a provincial NDP government. I was very much aware of the fact that this experiment had taken place in Dauphin. Many were surprised that neither administration, whether the NDP for now 20-plus years or the Conservatives for 15-plus years, had taken the initiative any further or had had that discussion or debate, at least while I was there, in any real way that led to a resolution or a recommendation to Ottawa.

I wonder if the member could maybe expand upon what she believes Manitoba's actual position is with respect to that, because I was never really clear on that.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record, because that is not factual. The fact is that the NDP government was in power and it was then taken over by the Conservative Party, which cancelled the program. It is not that the Manitoba government did not want it go forward at the time. Unfortunately, it was stopped by a Conservative government.

I would like to remind the member that it is an NDP member, with the support of the federal NDP caucus, who has actually been pushing this forward, including my bill for a guaranteed livable basic income. It is a little rich to say we are not moving on it when I am standing today, with the support of my whole caucus, supporting a guaranteed livable basic income.

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

Madam Speaker, I have much respect for the member for Winnipeg Centre.

Currently, there are a number of places in the Income Tax Act where individuals who earn less than $30,000 pay more than 50% in income tax and clawbacks. Would the member agree with me that we should reduce those clawbacks to enable people to keep more of their paycheques?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to frame it a little. I certainly agree that the ultrarich are not paying their fair share in this country, and I would point to things like tax havens and tax loopholes for the ultrarich.

In this discussion, we often forget about those who do not work. People with complex mental health and addiction issues might be able to work two days a week, not five. There are many people who cannot work. The problem and why we see so much growing inequality in this country is that we make a person's value and human rights about whether they are able to work or not.

For seniors, are we going to tell grandma she needs to get back to work? For a person suffering with mental health issues, are we going to tell them to get back to work, that they need to work five days a week and if they do not they are going to end up on the streets? Do I think we need to adjust our tax system so those making less pay less taxes? Absolutely. I hope the Conservatives eventually support that.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the critiques that often come up for programs like this is that some will say that it is a Conservative ruse to actually take away social programs on the back end. The Conservative member did reference clawbacks, and oftentimes it is provincial Conservative premiers who claw back on good social assistance programs.

Could the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, whom I thank for her work, perhaps dispel any myths about how this bill would harm social programs and talk about what safeguards we can have to ensure greedy premiers do not claw it back in order to have tax cuts for the ultrawealthy?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, this bill is very clear that a guaranteed livable basic income would be in addition to other supports and services meant to meet specific and special needs. That would include things like extra supports that may be required by certain communities. The disability community often has higher expenses. Their cost of living is often much higher than for other folks, so we cannot get rid of those other programs. That is certainly not the intention. It is about improving our social safety net. It is about improving current income guarantees to make sure they are livable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre. However, at the end of the day, I think that we need to take a broader look at how it is, as a society, we are there to support and the types of support programs that are put in place.

Canada's social safety net is something that has evolved. We have jurisdictional responsibilities in different areas, and some governments have been more successful than other governments in trying to eliminate poverty, in particular with a focus on children, and I would like to give some attention to that.

However, I want to emphasize that, every year, the national government hands over, in the form of a social transfer, hundreds of millions of dollars. It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of over $15 billion a year. That is to go to provinces to provide all forms of social support, which is the reason I raise the issue.

I was first elected in 1988 and, through the years, there has always been a great deal of discussion on how we ensure that the people who need the support get the type of support that is necessary. However, on having an income that we guarantee for everyone, I do not know if Canada is ready, and I know the member would be upset with that statement. I do not know and I am not convinced that Canada is in a position to do what it is that the proposed legislation is asking for. I do believe that we need to take a look at how government is able to lower the poverty rate and target funding. I have yet to be convinced, but I am open to the issue before us.

When I look at what, for example, we have been able to accomplish through targeted actions, it is very significant. I have talked about, for example, the Canada child benefit program and how that program lifted thousands of children in Winnipeg North out of poverty. I can talk about the guaranteed income supplement, something the member made reference to, and again how hundreds of the poorest seniors in the country are being lifted out of poverty as a direct result. There are ways in which governments, both at the provincial level and at the national level, can target in order to support people.

When we came into government, the poverty rate was just under 15%. Today, it is actually around 10%. I suspect that is because of the targeted actions we have taken as a government, and those are direct dollars. It does not take away from other types of investments that the government makes. For example, I was very proud of the fact that we came up with a $200-billion, over 10 years, commitment towards health care. That commitment is going to ensure that people, no matter what their income levels are, will be provided quality health care services into the future.

In recent budgets, we have seen an expansion, for example, with the dental program. When that is completely rolled out to Canada's population of 40 million people, we are talking about over nine million people who are going to have access to that dental program.

In this budget, I believe the single largest expenditure, and I stand to be corrected on this, is going towards the disability program that we are putting out.

We look at it as a very important first step, and it is going to have a positive impact in our communities. Some will ask why it is only $200. However, before this amount, it did not exist. When we talk about the hundreds of thousands of applicants and use the multiplying factor, this is a very good start.

There are other programs we have brought in through the budget. The pharmacare program is going to provide life-saving medications for some individuals in Canada. If we think of the numbers, they will be going to hundreds of thousands of people who are affected with diabetes. I do not know the actual numbers. Now we have a national government that is going to be there in a very real and tangible way.

These programs that are specifically targeted make a difference in our communities until, at least, I feel comfortable knowing that what is being suggested through the legislation is not going to take away from the enhancement of programs that I know are having a positive impact. When I say “take away from”, we are also talking about the financial commitments.

We increased the OAS for people 75 and above by 10%; we were criticized by members because we made a commitment to do just that. If we think about when people are hitting 75, some of their retirement money is starting to diminish and their medical needs increase. They also have that sense of independence as a senior. We now have a government that says that it is going to find the resources to ensure that they get that substantial 10% increase. That, in itself, helps a great number of seniors.

The government is able to look at ways it can actually make a difference, such as the child care program and the billions of dollars it cost. Who here, outside the Conservative Party, would say that was a bad program? We all got behind it and supported $10-a-day day care, which is going to help every region of our country.

When we think of programs, there are some that we do not necessarily get to talk about that often. With respect to the CPP program, there are approximately six million people who have retired and look to the CPP. It is something we worked on with the provinces in order to ensure people would get increases during their retirement.

I may look at ending it on that, because the way I started was by saying that I was familiar with what took place in the province of Manitoba, maybe not in great detail, but I was around during the discussions that followed in the Manitoba legislature for almost 20 years. I did not see or hear the Province of Manitoba, which is a fairly progressive province, advance with either a Progressive Conservative or NDP government that it wanted the country to be moving in this direction. There were no Liberal provincial governments, although we tried. I suspect that it did not say this because it saw the value of having targeted ways to bring people out of poverty. The government has demonstrated that through many budgetary measures we have taken, virtually since 2015. As a direct result, the poverty rate has gone down dramatically. I think this is viable, in a healthy way, moving forward.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get into the heart of my speech, I want to address a couple of comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre, whom I greatly respect. I just want to make it clear that Conservatives are very open to working with the NDP and any other party that wants to go after tax loopholes and tax evaders.

I have heard the member for New Westminster—Burnaby talk a lot about the Panama papers. Just yesterday at the Standing Committee on Finance, I asked CRA officials about how many convictions there have been and how many dollars have been collected from the Panama papers. I believe the answer is still zero. I am very happy to work with the NDP to close those loopholes and go after the ultrarich tax avoiders.

I also want to thank the member for putting forward this private member's bill, not only for its substance but also because it tells those who are struggling right now that the NDP cares about the most vulnerable. Quite frankly, and from my heart, we heard from the member across the aisle that there seems to be an absence of recognition of the struggles Canadians are going through. I thank the NDP for acknowledging that.

I want to talk about the affordability crisis. I know my NDP friends will probably not be as happy about these remarks, but they will give the important context that surrounds all of where we are today.

Specifically, I want to talk a bit about productivity and where we are as an economy. Ultimately, it is the economy that will drive the wealth of the nation. If we have a strong, productive economy, we will be wealthier. We can certainly argue about how to divide that pie, and the NDP has contributed greatly throughout its existence and had meaningful discussions about how to split it, but it has to be stated unequivocally that growing the pie is a good thing. Quite frankly, we have not seen that pie growing.

Over the last decade, we have seen almost zero GDP per capita growth. What that means is that we are facing a loss decade here in Canada. Our GDP per capita has grown by 4.73%, which is the actual number. We can contrast that to the United States, which is nearly 50%. Their economy has been growing 10 times as fast as ours over the last 10 years.

Strong productivity will lead to higher wages. As I said, we can certainly have discussions with the NDP about making sure we have a framework in place for things such as competition, which the NDP has been outspoken on and we agree upon, as well as other frameworks to make sure that pie is divided equally. However, we also have to talk about increasing that pie. If the pie shrinks, the reality is that the most vulnerable will suffer the most. Experts and economists say this.

Carolyn Rogers, who is the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, in a now famous speech on productivity, recently talked about the “time to break the glass” and the corrosive impact of a lack of productivity. It hurts inflation. An economy that can produce more goods and services, simply by virtue of that, reduces the cost of everything. We can think of this as the basic rules of supply and demand. If, in fact, an economy produces more goods, the costs of those goods go down, and the effect of inflation is decreased.

Carolyn Rogers went on to say that the level of productivity in Canada's business sector is more or less unchanged from seven years ago, as I talked about. She stated:

Back in 1984, the Canadian economy was producing 88% of the value generated by the US economy per hour. That’s not great. But by 2022, Canadian productivity had fallen to just 71% of that of the United States. Over this same period of time, Canada also fell behind our G7 peers, with only Italy seeing a larger decline in productivity relative to the United States.

Canada's productivity has fallen for the past 13 quarters. That is incredible. “Productivity” is fancy economist jargon but, really, all this word means is our ability to make goods and deliver services. Are we making goods more efficiently and more effectively?

Certainly, we can imagine those last 13 years. We have seen tremendous innovation, the rise of digitalization and even, now, the beginnings of artificial intelligence. However, our productivity in Canada has not increased.

A study published by the Fraser Institute found that, from 2014, business investment per worker declined by 20%. That is a bit of the story, too: We are not attracting or maintaining investment here in Canada.

I know what my NDP friend would say. I can say his name now, as he is not here: Daniel Blaikie. Mr. Blaikie would talk about the fact that the lack of competition was driving the lack of corporate spending. I do not disagree entirely with that thesis. In fact, I think that is an area where the NDP and the Conservatives could actually work together.

What we cannot do is bring uncertainty into the markets. We cannot overly restrict or unduly regulate businesses either. If we shrink their resources, we will shrink their ability to invest in our workers.

Canadian workers are the best in the world. They work as hard as, if not harder than, anyone else. The reason their productivity is not increasing is that businesses are not investing in their equipment and their machinery.

One can imagine productivity in Canada being like this: We have workers with shovels, but the Americans have workers with backhoes. As hard as our workers work, they will never be able to compete until we make the proper investments going forward.

Over the past five years, productivity in the business sector has fallen 0.3%, while it has grown by 1.7% in the U.S. That is our problem.

Longer term, the OECD projects Canada to rank dead last among the OECD members in real GDP growth out to 2060. Canada's 10-year average in GDP per capita is at its lowest level since the Great Depression. Cumulative growth has been about 2% in Canada versus 12% in the United States.

A lack of productivity has very real consequences. Unfortunately, across the aisle, we hear the same solutions over and over again: more taxing and more spending. Every time I hear this rhetoric, I always have, in my head, the great line from Winston Churchill: “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

The Liberals seem hell-bent on taxing prosperity, productivity and investment and making anyone with a dream of succeeding in this country feel as though what they want is bad. However, we need prosperity, achievers and success.

Certainly, as I said at the start of my speech, we need to make sure that all Canadians pay their fair share. Conservatives have been clear and unequivocal on that point. However, we also need to recognize those exceptional individuals who start from nothing, pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, make a success of it and create jobs, wealth and prosperity, not just for themselves but for our communities.

In conclusion, once again, I would like to thank the member for recognizing the terrible challenges that many Canadians are facing across this great country. What we really need in Canada is to bring back prosperity to this land through greater investments by our businesses, through an entrepreneurial spirit, through renewal, through rewarding success and through looking forward, with optimism, to future prosperity.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill. I want to commend my NDP colleague for initiating this debate on a guaranteed livable basic income.

We need to know how to recognize the social issues in our society, such as guaranteeing everyone enough income to live. In Quebec, there are studies that talk about a livable income, which is more than a minimum income. This type of income is supported by Quebec's Institut de recherche et d'informations socioéconomiques. That, too, is an interesting concept. No matter what region a person lives in, they need more than just a basic income. That is where the concept of livable income comes from. We addressed this issue during the study of Bill C‑319, which pertains to seniors.

All that to say, I do not believe that prosperity alone will bring about equality or equity. It takes robust social measures to ensure income equality in our societies.

As many know, no matter what it is called, be it guaranteed minimum income or universal allowance, this idea is not just being championed by the left. The right has also has also used it in its own way, saying we should dismantle social programs and give everyone a basic income. That, too, is a vision.

In Quebec, similar discussions have taken place regularly, particularly since the 1960s, when labour activists promoted them. Then the pandemic hit and nine million jobs suddenly vanished, laying bare just how fragile the system is. EI used to be a social safety net, but sadly, it no longer plays that role. During that time, we saw just how many people fell through the cracks.

These debates are ongoing in Quebec, in the other Canadians provinces and internationally. In Quebec, as I said, we have been having this debate since the 1960s.

Sorry about the noisy papers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, 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, 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, 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 resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-223, an act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in this House on behalf of those I represent in Winnipeg South Centre.

I want to thank my colleague across the way, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is also a neighbour of mine. Our constituencies border each another. I know that the member for Winnipeg Centre comes to work every day with a genuine desire to advocate for those she serves. In many instances, those she serves are among the most impoverished in our city and our country.

During my years as an educator, as a teacher and principal in particular, I learned a lot about the various things that are required for kids and their families to live a successful and healthy life. In particular, I recall a program in the Seven Oaks School Division, of which I was an employee for a number of years, located in the northwest part of the city of Winnipeg, that sought to give families and their kids a leg-up. At that time, we took some grant money that had been given to us through a partnership with the province and provided cash to those in need. Usually it was single mothers with kids at home living in some precarious situations by virtue of poverty, intergenerational trauma and other obstacles that daily life presents. We gave them cash on a monthly basis, and they invested it in the basic necessities of life, which included food, books, transportation and other things that would make life easier, healthier and more comfortable for them and their children.

On that note, I want to say that I am extremely proud of the investments that the federal government is making in a national school food program. I understand that there are some significant conversations happening on that and progress is under way with my home province of Manitoba. A collaboration between our two levels of government is going to leverage existing funding to help make sure that kids in need in the province get the type of nutritious and healthy food they need to succeed. Going back to the program in my former school division, what we saw was that people were happier and healthier, and they had the boost and leg-up that they needed.

In my home province of Manitoba, in the 1970s there was an experiment. It was in the city of Dauphin, in northern Manitoba. It was undertaken, constructed and implemented by a woman named Dr. Evelyn Forget, who I am very proud to say is a constituent of mine. I remember that during my by-election just last year, when I knocked on her door and we started talking about basic minimum income, she said that I ought to be thinking about it and gave me some ideas. I asked her if she knew that there was a project in Dauphin in the 1970s and she said, “Yes. I wrote it.” It was fascinating for me to have the opportunity to talk to a constituent with such a high degree of expertise and first-hand knowledge of this important issue.

Since then, I have had some very interesting conversations with Dr. Forget and other members of my constituency, who have articulated their desire to see me support the piece of legislation put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. Interestingly, when I read about the program in Dauphin in the 1970s and looked at similar programs implemented as recently as a few months ago in the province of Ontario, I could see some very interesting stories emerging that painted a picture of the ways in which a form of basic minimum income could be of benefit to Canadians.

If the bill is able to pass through this stage of debate to then lend itself to further discussion at committee, it is worthy of our support. It would be of merit for us to have a longer conversation about this legislation. In our parliamentary system, the committee stage, where we hear from witnesses and experts who give us guidance on whether it makes sense for us to move forward, is an appropriate place for this legislation to further explore the merits or disadvantages of a basic minimum income.

When the time comes to vote on the legislation, I will be lending my support to it. I do have questions and concerns, particularly as they pertain to cost, fairness and distribution. However, as I noted a moment ago, I trust that a thorough review at the committee stage of the proposed policies that are listed in this legislation will help us answer questions and let members decide at that point whether on its merits, the legislation deserves to go to the next stage.

I am going to keep my remarks more brief today than perhaps I would otherwise. I will conclude by again thanking my colleague and neighbour in Winnipeg for putting forward this legislation and enabling us to have an important discussion in this place about how we can support one another. I look forward to following the remarks to come from other colleagues as we decide whether to allow the legislation to advance to the next stage.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a great privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Shepard. Over the past two years, constituents have written to me on multiple occasions, both for and against a universal basic income, and specifically on the legislation before us as well as what I will call its partner legislation, which is in the Senate.

It is very confusing when the bills have almost the same number, and sometimes people get them confused. It is very difficult to understand when we are sent a bill number in the subject line but it is not explained whether it is S or C and I am left trying to figure out which legislation it is. I am always looking to respond, but sometimes I get it wrong, and then there is a conversation back and forth.

I have taken the time to read the legislation over, and I want to give the member who sponsored it the benefit of going through each section on the merits of the content. I will be voting against the bill, so I want to explain section by section why that is.

Clause 3 is on the national framework. This is the part that a lot of constituents have told me they have concerns about. There are those people who support it as well, but on the balance, my constituents want me to vote against it. It would create a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, and then it goes on to include temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.

It does not say “successful claimants”. It does not have the classification of protected persons. It does not refer to international students. It uses the wording “temporary workers”, which, when one reads it over, could mean a series of different things.

The bill also does not have a royal recommendation. It does not seek to spend any money. Therefore when I was responding to constituents, I noted for them that the bill does not have a budget, an amount, assigned to it, which is one of the reasons I would vote against it right away, because it would create a framework legislation. I generally do not support framework legislation. I have on a few occasions when I thought it would not be an imposition of huge new costs.

Subclause 3(2) has a consultation provision. Generally I like these types of consultation requirements with provincial, territorial and indigenous governments. I think they are more than reasonable. I come from the province of Alberta, where there is a requirement for the provincial government to consult, especially, for example, with Métis Settlements General Councils, or MSGCs. So far, I think Alberta is the only provincial government where it is a requirement; legislation affecting MSGCs cannot be changed without their consent. I think it is one of the first, if I am not wrong, among provincial governments, and I think it is a good idea generally.

Now I will move on to the content, which is subclause 3(3). It says that the framework must include four different types of provisions in it. For example, “guaranteed livable basic income program does not result in a decrease in services or benefits meant to meet an individual’s exceptional needs related to health or disability.” Of course this would not be universal, which in my view would be equal treatment for all, exactly the same.

I have read economics magazines and journals on the subject, which I will refer to in a moment, and they specifically state that a UBI or a negative income tax, which famously is kind of where the idea comes from, has to be completely equal to every single person regardless of their starting point.

There is also information in paragraph 3(3)(c) that would ensure that “participation in education, training or the labour market is not required in order to qualify for a guaranteed livable basic income”, and I have questions about temporary workers being made eligible for something like this. As I said, international students are not mentioned, but international students, as of September 1 of this year, can continue to work 24 hours per week in our labour market. However, as non-participation would allow them to participate in this benefit, they are specifically excluded in subclause 3(1). I do not know whether that was intentional or not.

Paragraph 3(3)(b) would “create national standards for health and social supports that complement a guaranteed basic income program and guide the implementation of such a program in every province”. I have two major concerns with this. One is that it would be an encroachment into provincial jurisdiction. My province gets to set what programs it wants. It does not have to in any way submit to the federal government when it is purely within its own provincial jurisdiction.

Second, setting national standards would encroach on provincial health care and social supports. My province has an age for PDD programs, as do many others, and it would be an encroachment to set a national standard, even if we consult with them. Consultation does not always lead to agreements, and our Constitution is very clear that there are areas of exclusive jurisdiction.

I know that is a comment often made by Quebec members of Parliament from different political parties, but it is one I think a lot of us Albertans make as well, that we have exclusive jurisdiction in many areas and we want the federal government to stay out of them.

Paragraph 3(a) talks about what would constitute a livable basic income in “each region of Canada” without spelling out what “region” would mean. In the Constitution, Canada is separated into four regions, if we use the Senate rules: western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Hopefully that is not what “region” means in this sense, because I think our state has evolved quite significantly and the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia combined now have a bigger population than the province of Quebec.

If I go on, there is a framework that is required to be tabled. There is more information on when it must be tabled and when the report must be provided to the House.

I have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do. I did forget to give one when I started speaking on Bill C-71, and I will always admonish myself for doing so. It says: He who is aware of his folly is wise.

In this instance, let us look at what is going on so we do not do something rash with our finances. We are facing a $40-billion deficit, and I wonder how we will pay for this. Jim Seeley, in my riding, wrote this great email asking a lot of questions about cost, percentages, who would be eligible, how would CPP and old age security work, just questions he was wondering about. I had to tell him I was not quite sure.

I did go and look, though, at the government's projections for future years. When does it expect to have a surplus? From a surplus, presumably, we would then look at whether we could do a universal basic income or a negative income tax. There is a $20-billion deficit in the last financial year that is forecast. The Government of Canada expects to accumulate a deficit of $157 billion by fiscal year 2028-29, and that is without any new spending announcements. That means no new public infrastructure dollars added, on top of what has already been announced, and no new procurement. There would be nothing new, nothing extra above and beyond that, and the government would still run a $20-billion deficit, so I wonder how all this would be paid for.

Finally, as I mentioned, a negative income tax has been talked about for at least the last 50 to 60 years. It was first proposed in a journal by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. He is often tagged as an economist of the right, which I do not think is entirely fair to him. Now, UBI and NIT, whichever acronym we want to use, work in slightly different ways but their goal is sort of the same. He recognized that a lot of public advocates on the left were generally very enthusiastic about the ideas he explained, especially the mechanisms his concept would work on and its end goal.

Public advocates on the right were much less enthusiastic and heavily criticized him when he wrote the journal. He recollected this quite often. There is a great YouTube video I often send to constituents, for them to hear from him, the expert, on the logic of how it would work. One of the things he said about UBI, or NIT, is that there would be no other welfare programs competing at the same time. There would be fewer civil servants, who he called nannies, who would look over the spending of citizens, of how they were living their lives and what they were doing.

To go back to my Yiddish proverb, I really hope we would be careful with the public's finances. We see it reflected in the polls, but I heard it while I was door-knocking in my riding of Calgary Shepard. My constituents are worried about the public finances. They are worried about a $40-billion deficit and about $150 billion more in debt being accumulated on the credit card of the nation. That is why I will be voting against this piece of legislation.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to give my first speech since returning from the summer break.

Before I talk about Bill C-223, I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Throughout the summer, I travelled thousands of kilometres to meet with people in my riding, visiting organizations and companies and attending galas and festivals. I met with seniors' groups to discuss the two classes of seniors created by the government through the pension regime. I had nothing but rewarding encounters. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who came out to see me or meet with me. Thanks to them, I am returning to Ottawa energized, with all kinds of plans and challenges to overcome. I am back in Ottawa with all their demands, concerns and problems on my mind.

Let us come back to Bill C‑223. As we have heard, Bill C‑223 would require 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. Let us start by understanding what is meant by guaranteed livable basic income. According to the Library of Parliament's legislative summary of Bill S‑233, a guaranteed basic income is “a cash transfer from government to individuals or families to provide an income floor below which no individual or family can fall.”

Over the summer, my constituents shared many wonderful stories with me, but I also heard much sadder stories. These are very tough times. Everything costs more, and many people just cannot make ends meet. Some have had to choose between paying for prescriptions, paying for insurance and paying for decent food. For example, one mom of a three-month-old infant decided to feed her child canned ravioli because it is cheaper. Seniors are eating cat food so they can save enough money to pay for their medication. I met workers who can no longer afford a place to live, so they are sleeping on the couch at a family member's or friend's place or living in their car.

This bill may be well-intentioned, but, unfortunately, it is another centralizing bill that encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction and that of the other Canadian provinces and the territories. Furthermore, it does not take into account the distinct nature of Quebec and the other Canadian provinces and territories. As we all know, the provinces and territories are responsible for administering their own social programs. Passing a bill like Bill C‑223 would mean stripping Quebec and the other provinces and territories of their jurisdiction and handing it over to a government that everyone knows cannot get the job done. If Quebec wants to, it can implement this kind of measure on its own, as can the other Canadian provinces and territories.

Adopting and implementing such a colossal federal measure, in parallel with the Quebec government's management of its own many programs, would be a nightmare. Honestly, the Canadian government no longer has the means to introduce a measure like this in the current economic context, when inflation continues unabated, when historic deficits are swelling the public debt, and when the Liberals have no plan to balance the budget.

The Liberal government cannot even live up to its transfer agreements on health, housing and many other areas. How can we trust a government that takes Quebec taxpayers' money only to engage in blackmail or impose conditions just to get a fraction of it back? We know the government's contempt for meeting its responsibilities. We know how hard it is to obtain adequate payments; too often, federal transfers are insufficient or non-existent. During this Parliament, we have seen how difficult it has been for this centralizing government to fix the fiscal imbalance. It takes far too much money to spend on its own, usually electoral purposes, but rarely for the benefit of Quebeckers.

Passing Bill C‑223 would destroy Quebec's social safety net and wipe out the range of social services provided to Quebeckers. Quebec's tax system would suffer too serious a blow. The entire administration of the Quebec nation would have to be reset. Bill C‑223 operates on the premise that a measure like the basic guaranteed universal income would improve the gap between the rich and the poor, although the experts are extremely divided on the issue.

I will give an example. In 2018, British Columbia, which was considering a similar measure, commissioned a report from a group of academic experts. The report concluded that a basic guaranteed income was not the best way to lift the poorest out of poverty.

Instead, the panel recommended specific government assistance paired with existing social programs. According to their estimate, updating existing programs and creating specific assistance would have cost British Columbia taxpayers between $3.5 billion and $5 billion. In contrast, introducing a guaranteed minimum income for everyone would have cost nearly $52 billion.

In no way does this bill or the people defending this concept take into account the enormous cost this would generate for the provinces. They would be forced to completely rethink how they manage their social programs.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated the cost of such a nationwide measure at close to $98 billion over just six months. What happened in British Columbia only served to reinforce the position of the Bloc Québécois and the Government of Quebec that assistance for citizens should be targeted. In 2017, a panel of experts commissioned by the Quebec government found that “Overall, Quebeckers benefit from an income support system that provides significant assistance during the main stages of life during which citizens risk finding themselves in a vulnerable situation”. That same report also stated that “When viewed as a whole, Quebec's existing income support system partially meets the definition of guaranteed livable income”.

In short, introducing a guaranteed livable income would have a major impact and would require either a significant tax hike or the end to many existing programs. It would create serious instability and bureaucratic structures and technological tools would not even be able to keep pace. In the future, it will be up to Quebeckers to decide whether they want a program like this one or whether they want to maintain the existing programs. It is certainly not up to Ottawa to tell us how to manage our social programs. What is more, there is no guarantee that this approach, however good it may look on paper, will be effective or meet its objectives.

This is also a matter of fairness. Quebec has chosen to create social programs for health care, education, affordable day care, parental leave, car insurance, preventive withdrawal and so on. What is more, we see that Quebec's social programs are working because Quebec has one of the lowest rates of wealth inequality in the country, along with Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

If the government ever has the money to fund a program like this, which encroaches on provincial jurisdiction, I suggest that it take that money to help people 65 to 74 who were excluded from the OAS increase. It could also use that money to honour its transfer commitments to the provinces and territories. It could build more housing and infrastructure. It could pay its share of the costs incurred for asylum seekers in Quebec. I am sure that the government could find ways to use this money in areas under its own jurisdiction without encroaching on provincial and territorial jurisdictions, as it so likes to do. The fact is that this government has never interfered in the jurisdictions of Quebec, the other provinces and the territories as much as it has in budget 2024. Never before has Ottawa gone so far in its push to centralize powers.

I understand the good intentions surrounding the introduction of this bill. However, again, the provinces and territories are responsible for introducing a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, not the federal government. For these reasons, we will not support Bill C‑223.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the wealth in this country is disproportionately held by rich CEOs and their companies. That hoarding of wealth is hurting women, indigenous people, persons with disabilities and all people without the power or access to fight corporate greed. Canadians live in one of the richest countries in the world, yet many Canadians are grappling with the weight of poverty and financial insecurity at the expense of corporate greed. Canadians deserve a government that gives them the relief they need, not more handouts for rich CEOs and tax breaks for corporations.

The inequality in society is stark. The cost of food has increased by over 20%, and we know that one in five Canadians is skipping meals. As we navigate this shifting landscape, people across Canada, especially those suffering the most due to systemic inequalities, are feeling the effects even more. It does not have to be this way. Poverty is one of the most avoidable, violent human rights violations in this country. Poverty is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canada can end poverty with this important bill, a bill that would provide a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.

The bill was brought by my colleague, the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre. The NDP respects the charter rights of Canadians. Conservatives have already said that they do not respect the Charter and are open to bypassing it at will by using the notwithstanding clause. They are not supportive of this bill to end poverty.

Basic necessities, such as food, housing and health care, are not just becoming more expensive, but are less accessible. This crisis is hitting marginalized people the hardest. Women, and disproportionately racialized women, are affected by rising costs and stagnant wages. They are the backbone of our communities and our economy, yet they are struggling to make ends meet. This is wrong.

Under the Liberals' watch, we have seen basic necessities grow increasingly out of reach. We know the grocery sector is making record profits, and in 2023, it raked in $6 billion. This is unconscionable when families are struggling to feed their children, and workers across this country have to choose between rent and food. Seniors are skipping meals to afford their medications. Women who already face systemic barriers in the workplace are now forced to take on multiple jobs just to keep their bills paid.

While the government made lofty promises, the reality on the ground is telling a very different story. The rising cost of living is not just an economic statistic, but a daily struggle for countless Canadians. Meanwhile, Conservatives want to cut spending on public services that support the most in need. They want to cut essential services such as child care, and I hear a beautiful child tonight in the chamber, which would disproportionately force women out of the workforce to care for their families. As well, they want to cut health care and pharmacare, which would only exasperate cost-of-living challenges. Conservatives, without a doubt, will put more Canadians into poverty.

At a time when we are seeing record amounts of homelessness, with wages continuing to stagnate because of government after government's choice to choose corporations over Canadians, we need to give back hope. We need Canadians to know that, with a new government, things can get better, and not with cuts to important supports people rely on. This is not just a matter of politics, but a matter of basic human dignity. Canadians deserve better. Our communities deserve better.

That is why we, in the NDP, are fighting for solutions that truly provide relief for Canadians. A guaranteed livable basic income would transform the lives of all Canadians. This is a transformative policy that would ensure every Canadian has the financial support necessary to live with dignity and security. Imagine a Canada where no one has to worry about where their next meal will come from or whether they can afford to keep a roof over their head. A guaranteed livable basic income would be a crucial step toward alleviating the economic struggles faced by so many, including indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, women and all marginalized communities.

We heard at committee that children across this country are going to school hungry, and there is a wide array of intersectional issues that a guaranteed livable basic income would address for them. It would also empower individuals to pursue additional education without fear of massive debt. Workers could seek additional training without risking their livelihoods, and people could seek better work opportunities without the constant fear of financial losses.

People who cannot work in this ableist society would have dignity too. The positive impact of a GLBI on people with disabilities cannot be understated. For many individuals living with disabilities, the current system is fraught with challenges: barriers to employment, limited access to services and a safety net that the Conservatives and the Liberals continue to wear away. Current estimates show that 1.5 million Canadians living with disabilities live below the poverty line, and close to a million of them are working-age people.

A guaranteed livable basic income would provide the support needed for people living with disabilities. It would also help Canada meet its commitment under section 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as constitutional commitments to ensure the provision of essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians, something the government is not doing right now.

The promise of a GLBI is not just theoretical. It is a realistic solution that has been successfully implemented in various forums around the world. Trials here in Canada have shown that when people are given a financial safety net, they thrive. The NDP understands that a guaranteed livable basic income is not just a policy; it is a commitment to building a more equitable society. The NDP would like to see this bill go to committee as soon as possible so we can hear from all communities that support a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand in the House today for the first time after a summer break and speak to a policy proposal from the New Democratic Party on something I have always been very interested in looking at. I am always enthusiastic about any policy proposed in the House that aims to reduce or eliminate poverty in Canada. This project to bring forward a universal basic income is one that I am keenly interested in.

Immediately, it caused me to look back on efforts over the last decade or so to implement something similar in the province of Ontario very close to my home; I grew up at the Chautauqua co-op in Oakville. The Liberal Wynne government in Ontario in 2017 brought forward a pilot project that would provide a basic income to 4,000 people across Ontario. That project followed recommendations made by Hugh Segal in consultation with various groups. It was a good start. Basic income would reduce poverty more effectively, and it could encourage work and reduce stigmatization, but more than that, it could also reduce a lot of the bureaucracy involved in the navigation of these various programs.

Instead of using an old example, I will use a recent one. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had a gentleman in my office in Milton to discuss all of the confusion related to interim unemployment, related to his tenuous employment. He was navigating both the Ontario disability support program, Ontario Works, and employment insurance at the same time. With other benefits from the government, like the Canada child benefit and many others, there is a constellation of support programs that aim to reduce poverty in Canada. It is a lot of administration, there are a lot of programs, and when we cater all of these programs to various groups and various people, it is good because they can be very targeted. At the same time, sometimes it requires a master's in public policy to figure out how to maximize those benefits that we all pay for.

I think about employment insurance often. People are often very reluctant to go on employment insurance in Ontario. I have a friend who just got laid off and said they do not want to go on EI. I asked why. That is the insurance that they have been paying into with every single paycheque since they were 16 or 17 years old. They deserve that money. The reason we pay into that program is to make sure we have stability.

That stability could also be provided by a universal basic income, as proposed by this bill. Unfortunately, 10 months after the Liberal administration of this project in, I believe, Thunder Bay and Hamilton, Ontario, and a couple of other smaller municipalities, Doug Ford and his Progressive Conservative government, after saying they would allow the completion of the program so they could fully study it, cancelled it. They cancelled it very abruptly and left the 4,000 participants in this pilot project in the lurch and, quite frankly, devastated. For better or for worse, the Premier of Ontario has demonstrated the ability to change his mind quite often. Sometimes that has been good, such as when he decided not to pave the Greenbelt. At other times, like this, he went back on his word and cancelled a program he said was worth completing. It was worth completing, and this is worth studying.

All the anti-poverty groups I have ever met with and continue to read about are in favour of a universal basic income. It is sort of sad to hear Conservatives talk about poverty elimination as a left-wing concept. I do not think poverty elimination is a left-wing concept. I think it is for everybody in the House. We should all be concerned with how legislation encourages poverty, creates poverty and sustains poverty in Canada. There is absolutely no reason for a wealthy country like Canada to have anybody in deep poverty.

I strongly believe that a universal basic income is worth studying so we can look into all of the various ways to ensure we are doing the most for Canadians, whether they are employed, between employment, unable to find employment or, frankly, taking risks. Conservatives like to talk about how it is important, out there in the real world, despite their leader never having really ventured there, to be able to take risks financially. If we want to innovate, if we want to do art, if we want to practise something new, that might take some time. I love the idea that the universal basic income, or a guaranteed livable income, would provide people with the ability to take those risks, innovate, try something new, create art, maybe even try out for a new team or something like that, showing my stripes as an athlete. I applaud the member from the New Democratic Party for their work on this, and I am looking forward to hearing more throughout the debate.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to speak about a topic on which I know there are a range of views. In a democracy, we can disagree, but I would say that everyone who has spoken tonight believes in helping Canadians, particularly those living in poverty.

I spoke earlier today about how part of being Canadian is trying to help one another. I think many of the sentiments are good; it is just about how best to achieve that. While I certainly take issue with some elements that have been presented here tonight, I want to acknowledge that the member, who has submitted an idea for debate that she feels very strongly about, deserves credit for having brought this issue to the forefront.

Bill C-223 is an act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, and first of all, it is important to say what this piece of legislation would do. It would not actually enact a guaranteed livable basic income. It is more of a framework to have further discussions so that at some point some sort of report can be done by the minister after discussing such a framework and doing subsequent work on it.

There is lots to discuss. Milton Friedman, a famous American economist and, some would argue, one of the greatest economists of all time, talked about a reverse income tax that would pay people. There is the same type of thing in the bill, so this is not just found in left-wing politics. Some people have mentioned former Senator Segal, who had a long career. This is an area that has advocates on both the left of the political spectrum and the right.

More than anything else today, I will say two things. First of all, I am speaking personally. I follow what political philosopher Karl Popper used to discuss, the use of something called “reverse utilitarianism”. Some may recall that utilitarianism is usually public policy meant to do the most good for the most people, to increase the general happiness for the most people. Reverse utilitarianism is reducing the suffering of those who suffer the most.

Anytime we have a question about universal programs, we have to ask who would be receiving said programs. Universal programs are not cheap. That means that every single person, regardless of their condition, would have the ability, by their choosing, to opt into this framework to receive money from the federal government. However, we do not talk about persons with disabilities, those who have the toughest situations. By giving money to those who are able, we take away resources that could go toward helping those who have the most severe issues so they can live a fulfilling life within society. That is something we would do best to keep in mind.

When the B.C. NDP government established a panel that did a report in 2020, one of its key concerns was that giving out money does not necessarily mean those who need it the most get the exact support they need. The cost of this has been brought up. University of British Columbia economist Kevin Milligan has argued that a universal basic income, whatever name we use, would be enormously expensive. That is something the panel said in its report. It also talked about the need to have some of these discussions.

If we were post-World War II parliamentarians discussing Germany and other countries putting in a welfare state and whether we should consider doing likewise, perhaps after having a discussion as a young country with a tremendous amount of economic growth, our young population would be able to support such a policy. We then would have a legitimate choice between apples and oranges: the apples of the welfare state or the oranges of a universal basic income. However, we are not in that position. Our economic growth is not flowing.

We have something called secular stagnation and the indebtedness of not just G7 and G20 countries, but of aging populations as well. We already see many provinces where businesses are complaining about a lack of workers. We have seen unemployment tick up. At a time where we are saying we need to have more people to build homes, why would we be inducing healthy individuals to take a benefit from the government and just take them out of the work force completely?

I understand the sentiment behind the thinking of the member, but I do not think this is the right policy environment for this type of policy to go forward. Again, with our aging demographics, we want to encourage more people to work. Why is that? After talking to people, it seems that most Canadians think that our old age security system is a pillar that is important to support. It is, again, a transfer from existing taxpayers today, those who are paying taxes, who send their taxes to Ottawa in good faith, and then those transfers go out to what is becoming a larger and larger population of seniors. Suddenly switching the gears to where we are actually pushing people to consider not working, to me, makes it very difficult to support this kind of transition.

Bear in mind that we also need to have a discussion as it is ultimately provinces as well that have a big role to play. Under our Constitution, the provinces are usually responsible for the social welfare of their populations. I do not think it will work for us to suddenly have a new federal program come down, especially with the way it would interact with each individual province and their systems of transfers, systems of grants and systems of programs and services.

If we look to Bill C-22, which was passed in the chamber, it talks about creating a Canada disability benefit. I hope that we can all acknowledge the truth, which is that we have no idea how much someone would get from that particular program. We now know that the government would not give more than $2,000 a year, or $200 a month.

The problem is that we have so many different programs at the federal and provincial levels, and they are already so costly. I just do not think that this is a good use of time and energy, although I appreciate its sentiment. I believe that we need to be thinking about how we can help out our fellow Canadians. This is a country where we look after our own. However, I have my worries about the economic arguments: our aging demographics, the lack of clarity of what provincial programs are doing and the fact that provinces such as B.C. have looked at this and have actually said that they are not proceeding with their own system, similar to what the member spoke of.

Lastly, there is reverse utilitarianism at play. We should not be considering more universal benefits, in my opinion, without first asking ourselves what this would do to those who are suffering the most. I do believe that targeted programs, such as our guaranteed income supplement, should be looked at. We should always be trying to ask ourselves how we can help those who are in the most extreme need, who do not have an income to be able to look after themselves, or those people who, unfortunately, due to some circumstance, have a disability that does not allow them to engage in Canadian society like the rest of us.

I will be voting against this. I do appreciate there are a number of people who have spoken very strongly about this. However, if it comes down to it, I only have two choices, either to support this or not. I reluctantly will just say that I am not going to be in support of a whole comprehensive change to our support programs for the reasons that I have given.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak to the important piece of legislation before us. I want to start by thanking the member for Winnipeg Centre for doing a tremendous amount of work on the issue of a real universal basic income for people.

The legislation is very simple in that it says it is about creating a wide framework to look at a lot of the issues that the Conservatives have expressed some concerns about: How do we do this, what is the best way to do it and would it be the most effective?

When we look at the state of our society right now, we see an increase in poverty, and we see it in the numbers. We know that everyday people working hard are making a pretty stagnant income; the level of their income is staying where it has been for a very long time. At the same time, the wealthiest people in this country and in many other countries are seeing a huge increase. Our system is essentially becoming unfair. That is why we need to start looking at innovative programs like universal basic income. It says that we need a bar of dignity in our country that nobody should fall below.

I am not unlike every other Canadian who lives in their community. More and more people are struggling. More and more people are living on the streets. I always say that it is easy to judge people who are living on the streets. I know who I am, but if I were put out on the streets with nothing, I have no idea who I would become. That is what is happening in this country. People are becoming disposable, but there are no disposable people, and it is wrong that we are at that point. Something like a guaranteed livable income would make sure people have the resources they need.

I do not know whether members in this place are being as thoughtful on this as they might be. Today a veteran spoke to us at committee, and one of the things he talked about is how the system in Veterans Affairs under the Conservative and Liberal governments has become increasingly more frustrating. If a veteran comes home with trauma and illness and is suffering in some way, their partner has to fight for the money because it is a separate part of the bucket of money that goes to veterans.

I do not know how many people have talked about the fact that they do not have enough time to work as much as they would like to because they are caring for their loved one. When we keep making little buckets of money and people have to find out whether they are available and whether they are allowed to receive it, the system fails for so many people. They are falling through the cracks, and by the time they have fallen through the cracks, the need is so high that addressing that need becomes overwhelming.

This work has been done in different places. I can think of one place in Ontario where the Liberal government did it not too long ago. Mental health outcomes got better and people got to work. For people just trying to survive, who have absolutely nothing, it is really hard to dress nicely enough to go for an interview. It is really hard to find the time, if there is nobody to watch their kids, to get out there to do those things.

When people have a stable income, it does not make them not work. I am tired of listening to the Conservatives say that. It is not true. People thrive in opportunity, but it is hard to thrive when people do not know how they are going to survive the next day.

I think of people in my riding. I am going to be talking about this again and again. Right now, seniors have a guaranteed livable income in our system, which is the guaranteed income supplement. The CPP was raised for the poorest seniors in Canada. The government did not think about it for a minute, so what happened the next year? Their GIS got cut substantially, and now seniors are trying to make it through the month. They lost money because nobody plans. That is why we need a holistic program that serves everyone.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor for her right of reply.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start out by thanking many people, specifically, Basic Income Canada, Manitoba, UBI Works and, of course, the Hon. Senator Kim Pate, whom I partnered with on the bill; she presented it on the Senate side. It is time for a guaranteed livable basic income to bring together people across Canada who are falling through the cracks.

I want to urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to make a final effort to get this passed to committee. I have heard today that it is just a framework. There are limits with PMBs. There is no budgetary allotment in it. We are not allowed to do that within the parameters of a PMB, but we are allowed to put in a framework. All together, we can get the framework to committee for further study.

I know that many people, all MPs across this Parliament, heard from their constituents over the summer that people everywhere are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of living. The people we represent need real solutions. We have income guarantees in this country: EI and GIS are income guarantees, but they are not livable.

I am not proposing anything new. All I am proposing is to make current income guarantees livable and expand them for people who are falling through the cracks. Somebody said it is not for international students. My bill very clearly states that it is for anybody over the age of 17 residing in Canada.

We know that, in recent years, policy-makers largely abandoned efforts to invest in our people and our communities, focusing instead on investing in huge corporations through subsidies and tax breaks. To those who say that, if we have a basic income, people will stop working, I say that is false. Research, time and time again, has proved that to be false. There is no evidence that a basic income discourages work. In fact, it does the exact opposite.

For example, the Canada child tax benefit is a kind of basic income in this country for families. Mothers do not work less; they actually work more. The Canada child benefit grows the economy. If we want to talk about benefits to the economy, there is two dollars for every dollar invested, and it keeps 250,000 families out of poverty and contributes 450,000 jobs to the economy. Basic income is good for the economy. The myth of the poor person trying to game the welfare system is nothing more than poor-bashing. What is far more common is the ultrawealthy gaming the system to evade paying taxes.

To those who say that, if we have a basic income, inflation will get worse, that is false. Inflation worsens when the government borrows money or increases the money supply, but this is not necessary to introduce a GLBI. Every cent needed to support a basic income is already being spent in this economy on corporate subsidies and inefficiencies in the social safety net.

To those who say a basic income is too expensive, let us start talking about the high cost of poverty, such as the fact that it costs $225,000 a year to house one woman in a federal penitentiary. Let us talk about the high cost to our health care system; poverty keeps people sick and causes a strain to our health care system. That costs a lot of money. Governments dump billions of dollars into criminalizing poverty rather than addressing its root causes.

I am asking all members of Parliament today to study this more. I am asking for members to lend their votes to get this to committee. Instead of basing decisions on false understandings of a GLBI, let us really study it. Let us at least support the bill to get it through second reading, so we can study it and make policy decisions based on facts, not assumptions.

I thank everybody who is supporting the bill. It means a lot to hundreds of thousands of people, including the many seniors who support the bill and, of course, those in the disability community, who are critically left out of the social safety net.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:42 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-223, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

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.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #859

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion defeated.