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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

One of the things that I put forward in this Parliament is Bill C-223 to implement a guaranteed livable basic income. I'll give you a couple of examples why.

Many seniors are women who worked in unpaid care work for their lives. Their kids grew up, and these senior women have no pension to benefit from. A guaranteed livable basic income.... We know that the current GIS system is not livable for seniors in this country.

Would a guaranteed livable basic income assist, particularly in rural and remote areas, in offsetting the issues around child care and other care?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I know that you spoke about financial barriers. One of the things that I've proposed in this Parliament is for a guaranteed livable basic income. I'll give you an example.

One of my neighbours always wanted to open a business. While she was collecting the CERB because she couldn't work during that time, she got an education and now is an entrepreneur. I'm trying to put forward a bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income in addition to things like affordable housing with rent geared to income to support the economic empowerment of women, particularly women who've been marginalized by systems. I'm thinking of women living with disabilities, immigrant or migrant women, racialized women and Black or indigenous women.

Do you think a guaranteed livable basic income for women who want to pursue entrepreneurship, for example, would be helpful?

National Framework for a School Food Program Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on C-322, an act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program. My colleague for Vancouver Kingsway and I put forward a similar bill in this Parliament, to push forward a school food program for children.

This is something that has been called for by experts and advocates for a long time, for many years, to develop a national school meal program. Canada continues to be one of the few industrial countries to not have such a program or national standards. We actually ranked 37th out of 41 wealthy countries, in terms of providing schoolchildren with nutritious food, according to a 2017 UNICEF study.

In fact, if we add first nations communities, which are often left out of these statistics, Canada falls even further behind. That is shameful in a country as rich as Canada.

Prior to teaching at university, in the faculty of education, where I taught for many years, I actually taught in schools. I taught in an inner-city school. As a new teacher, I noticed that the kids in the classroom where I was teaching had sometimes significant behavioural issues.

I then realized what the root of the problem was. It was that the kids going to school in my class were hungry. They could not learn. Their learning was impaired. Because of their hunger, they became disruptive in the classroom. Therefore, one of my first lessons as a new teacher, to control behaviour in my classroom, was to ensure that kids were not hungry.

I put in a toaster with bread, granola bars and apples. I did not make the kids ask for food. I respected their dignity. I respected the dignity of their families, who were doing the best they could at the time but could not afford food.

This is not a new problem. Besides what Conservatives try to pull, indicating that this is a new problem, it was under a Conservative government, in fact, that my kids in the classroom were going to school hungry.

It is about a dilapidated, archaic social safety net that is keeping families further behind. One reason I put forward a bill for a guaranteed livable basic income is that, in a country as rich as Canada, nobody should go to school hungry. That was Bill C-223, the same bill that Senator Kim Pate put forward on her side.

This basic human right to food security should not be denied to anybody, especially children, whose learning is impacted in schools when they are literally starving. Having put a toaster in my classroom and having bread and fruit, I noticed that, instead of being disruptive, the kids were attentive. Instead of feeling demoralized by having to share that there was not enough food in their home, they could, with dignity, just eat.

I said to them, if they were hungry, they could just take food. I need snacks all the time. We get hungry. They could just help themselves. I made sure to have this in my classroom.

Boy, what a difference I saw in these bright, dynamic, inspiring, courageous young people. They had so many barriers, it was amazing they made it to class, let alone having food security, a basic human right, being a barrier to the learning that they were trying to do in my classroom.

As I said, no child should attend school on an empty stomach.

The Liberals first promised this national school program in 2019. Four years later, thanks to their colleague, they put forward a private member's bill, but they still have not delivered. Kids still go to school hungry.

The Conservatives are completely silent on the issue. In fact, in this debate today, instead of fighting to ensure that kids do not go to school hungry, they make everything about oil and gas. I stood on a point of order about that earlier, because it is unacceptable that, on the backs of kids' human rights, we take this time to politicize kids' hunger. It infuriates me today that even when we are talking about kids' hunger, we are talking about oil and gas.

The New Democrats have been on this page long before the Liberal promise and this bill, and we are going to keep advocating for the creation of a national school food program that ensures that every child and every family will have access to nutritious, healthy food. This can be done by addressing gaps in our social safety net, gaps that have not kept up with inflation and leave families behind. We very often politicize issues in this place, to my disappointment and certainly to the disappointment of families in Winnipeg Centre, which competes for the highest child poverty rates in an urban centre in the country. We need to make time for them. That is our job in this House: to fight for those who have elected us.

We know that EIA rates have not kept up. Now families, more than ever, are choosing between food and rent. They are experiencing, for the first time, being unsheltered and, as a result, having to literally depend on food banks to get fed. This is unacceptable. We should never need food banks, because people should always be given enough to have their basic human rights met. We have a Constitution in this country, which says that everybody should live with security and in dignity. This is a principle, a fundamental law in our Constitution, which we fail to uphold. We need food programs in schools right now; the NDP will support the bill, but the Liberals need to put it in place.

So many children in this country are going hungry. There are certain kids in this country who, depending on immigration status, do not even get the Canada child benefit and are even more hungry. There is a human rights case on this. We need to address the issue of poverty. We cannot constantly politicize human rights in this place. Not everything is a political sound bite. Not everything needs to get in the media. Sometimes, we need to be in touch with our basic humanity, especially when we are talking about the hunger of children in this country. This is the reason I felt a need to rise on a point of order in the House. This is an issue that we should not even be debating right now.

We should not delay. I want to congratulate the member on putting forward this bill. I want him to know that my party will be supporting it. I hope the Conservatives, if they are so worried about families, support this bill, make sure that we update the social safety net, stop with the sound bites and make sure no child in this country ever goes to school hungry.

Child Health Protection Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-252, the child health protection act.

For many years, the NDP has been calling for a law to stop junk food advertising aimed at children, and 11 years ago we called for such a ban, but no action was taken by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. I am hopeful that with the support from all parties, we can pass this bill and stop the barrage of junk food ads directed toward kids.

I am also hoping that we go further than that, by putting in place a national school food program that gives every child the nutritious food they need to thrive.

The evidence is clear that banning junk food directed at young children leads to better health outcomes. Quebec has had such a ban in place for over 40 years and the results speak for themselves. Fast food consumption in Quebec has gone down by 13% since the law was put in place. In addition, Quebec has the lowest obesity rates among five- to 17-year-olds and the highest consumption of fruits and vegetables in Canada.

It is a true nutrition success story that should be applied across the country. Not only will a law to stop junk food advertising benefit our kids' health, it also makes financial sense.

This is a preventative step that in the long term will mean fewer visits to the ER for preventable diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. At a time when our health care system is strained and faced with an aging population, it is a no-brainer for us to reduce the pressure on the system by passing this bill into law.

It is immoral for the CEOs of big food companies to be profiting off pushing junk food to young children. As much of 90%, in fact, of the food ads children see are for unhealthy food products and these ads are increasingly sophisticated. Companies are making money off selling products to young people that are harmful for their health.

This is wrong and it has to stop. Just as we have done with big tobacco companies in severely restricting advertising of their products, we must do the same with big food companies that are irresponsibly marketing junk food to young children.

While the ban on junk food aimed at children is an important first step, it is not enough. We cannot have a conversation about ensuring that our kids are getting proper nutrition without talking about poverty. Poverty makes it so much more difficult for families to make the healthy food choices they would like to make but are unable to because of the lack of money.

I recall a story. As a young early childhood educator, when we instituted a no-junk-food lunch policy, a mother shared with me that it was cheaper for her to buy a bag of cookies that lasts two weeks than a bag of apples that lasts a week.

We cannot talk about healthy food choices without addressing issues of poverty, especially in this affordability crisis we are living in, with persistently high grocery prices. Far too many people simply cannot afford healthy food to sustain a balanced diet. Eating healthy is expensive and preparing healthy meals can also be very time-consuming.

When one is working two or three jobs to make ends meet, which is not uncommon in this country, particular with the affordability crisis, time becomes a luxury one cannot afford, leading one to choose convenience foods that are quick and cheap but unhealthy.

I see it in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, which has the highest child poverty rate of any riding in the country.

Too many kids are going to school on an empty stomach. Families are choosing between groceries and rent. Food banks are reporting record usage, and the temporary pandemic benefits that kept families afloat have expired and have not been maintained. Poverty is a form of economic violence. I have likened choosing to keep people poor to one of the worst human rights violations, and poverty is something that is faced by many of my constituents, including children, which robs them of the best possible start in life.

That is wrong, and it is a direct result of deliberate policy choices.

I believe we need to make different choices to eliminate poverty and ensure that every child gets the nutritious food they need. It is a choice, and the lack of political will to eradicate poverty, especially for children, is unacceptable. One of these choices is implementing a national school food program. Providing every child with healthy school meals would be a game-changer that would go a long way towards improving nutrition in this country.

It is long past time for us to put such a program in place. Canada remains the only G7 country without a national school food program or national standards. In 2019, the Liberals promised in their federal budget to work towards implementing a program, but after four years, they have still not delivered.

I call upon the government to keep its promise and finally allocate funding for a national school food program in the upcoming federal budget. It would make a profound difference in the lives of children, including many children in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, whose learning is harmed because they are not getting the healthy food they need. I am a former educator, and in my classroom I had a toaster, bread and other food, which I bought with my teaching salary as a classroom management program because I knew the kids in my classroom could not learn or stay focused on an empty stomach.

Another choice is introducing a guaranteed livable basic income for all people in Canada. Yesterday, on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, I joined Senator Kim Pate in support of her bill, Bill S-233, and my own bill, Bill C-223, the national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income act, at a press conference. In its study of Bill S-233, the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance heard overwhelming support from experts and advocates for the social, economic and health benefits that a guaranteed livable basic income would provide.

Providing a guaranteed livable basic income is an idea whose time has come because we know the pandemic revealed the deep cracks in our social safety net, and those cracks remain. In every corner of this country, the human rights of people living below the poverty line are violated on a daily basis. I have called poverty one of the most violent human rights violations, one that robs people of their dignity and their humanity. In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, no one should be forced to sleep in tents, on the streets or in bus shelters. By providing everyone over the age of 17 who needs it with an unconditional cash transfer, a guaranteed livable basic income would lift millions of people out of poverty.

Poverty is expensive. In fact, poverty costs our country at least $80 billion a year. It costs our health care system, and one of the benefits of GLBI would be improving just that.

To conclude, I want to thank the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing the bill. I call on all members to support it, and I call on all members to support measures, including a national school food program and a guaranteed livable basic income, which would ensure no child in this country is ever hungry again.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a solution. I have a bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income. When we're talking about agency, I'll be ramping up my campaign, FYI.

Do you think a guaranteed livable basic income is important if we're really going to deal with the issue of human trafficking head-on? It's a yes-or-no answer.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I have another quick question for Ieesha.

I put forward a bill for a guaranteed livable basic income. It's Bill C-223.

We're talking about sex trafficking and protecting women, girls and gender-diverse folks from being sex trafficked. Give me a yes or no. Would a guaranteed livable basic income be a tool of prevention?

Guaranteed Basic Income

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

Mr. Speaker, seniors across Canada are facing significant challenges. I hear from seniors, largely single women, who are struggling to make ends meet. They cannot afford housing, basic food, medication and heat. Almost 600,000 Canadian senior women are living in poverty. Far too many of those women are further marginalized because of who they are: indigenous, Black, persons of colour and those from the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. Others are widows of veterans who married their spouse of after 60 years of age and are left without a pension because of a sexist, outdated gold-diggers clause.

In Canada, we should have a guaranteed livable basic income, as Bill C-223 by my friend, the member for Winnipeg Centre, would do. It is an amount that would would allow no one in this country to fall below the bar of basic dignity.

Canadians must ask themselves about the expense of abandoning those most in need and of their suffering. It is time to do better for seniors.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

I have a very quick question for a yes-or-no answer from all the witnesses.

I introduced Bill C-223 to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income. Whether you support the rights of sex workers or not, I think we can all agree that a guaranteed livable basic income, in addition to affordable, accessible housing with rent geared to income, would help wherever you stand with this situation.

Yes or no, would a guaranteed livable basic income be a foundational piece to address this?

Finance

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to rise in the House today. Before I begin, I will mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

We talk about budgets, and I hear rhetoric in the House almost on a daily basis about how people from coast to coast are struggling to make ends meet, with a particular reference to single mothers. The story of the single mother is consistently usurped in this House without real solutions to tackle issues of poverty and inequality in this country.

I actually was a single mom, as I have mentioned in the House. When I first had my son, I was one of the people we talk about in the House. I was not a single mom at the time, but I had just graduated from university and I was poor. The only thing that kept a roof over our heads at the time and allowed me to feed my son was affordable housing with rent geared to income and social assistance. I had just given birth to my child, and my partner at the time had employment that did not pay the bills, so I needed to get help.

I share this today because I often find that in this place these stories are taken by people who have never had lived experience with struggling to make ends meet or struggling to feed their kids. I share today, with my head held high, that I was one of those folks. It is an experience that allows me to understand that things are more difficult in life than a person picking themselves up by their bootstraps so they can survive.

Very often things are much more complicated in the lives of individuals and families, and they were for me at the time. I consider myself a well-educated person. It certainly was not about a lack of intelligence or hard work. It was just a matter of the circumstances of life at the time.

I share this because we are still coming out of a global pandemic that has impacted families from coast to coast, a pandemic that has left families more economically vulnerable than we have seen in a long time. We had programs put in place during the pandemic that kept food on the table, I would argue. We had CERB.

Now, as we move in another direction in real time, the current government is not going after big corporations to pay their fair share of the pandemic. It is not going after the billionaire class to pay their fair share of the pandemic. It is not going after big CEOs to pay their fair share of the pandemic. Do members know who it is going after? It is low-income parents to get money from the monies they collected from CERB, knowing that costs for families were drastically impacted during the pandemic.

That is unacceptable, and who is the most impacted by it? It is single mothers with multiple children. We are talking about housing and supporting families. This is going to leave a lot of families on the verge of falling into the streets.

Going back to my story, I was very fortunate at the time that I had affordable housing with rent geared to income. It allowed me to keep food on the table when food did not cost as much. That is not the reality right now, which is why the NDP has called on the current government to put in place CERB amnesty for low-income families in particular. The process the government is using could result in families being at greater risk of precarious housing and being placed in deeper levels of poverty. We know that people who were already behind before the pandemic are further behind now.

We need to stop poor-bashing in this place. We need to stop the simplified discussions about how to deal with the growing poverty crisis that impacts my riding of Winnipeg Centre, Manitoba, which was just reported to have some of the highest child poverty rates in the country.

Children are supposed to be provided with minimum human rights. We have signed on to international law. We have an obligation to uphold international and domestic laws to ensure that children are provided with basic human rights, which are being violated every day, whether in urban centres, first nations communities, indigenous communities or Inuit communities across the country.

I hope all my colleagues in the House will support the call for a CERB amnesty for low-income families, which, again, are the most impacted. If we are so concerned about the story of the single mother, it will be single mothers with multiple children who will be most impacted. That, for me, as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre, is a true test of this so-called care I hear about in this place all the time. We must have CERB amnesty now.

The NDP also put forward a dental care plan, a universal pharmacare plan, and has been fighting for a national child care strategy that prioritizes public, not-for-profit care. We have been working with frontline advocates and organizations for almost 30 years to push that forward.

I am glad the current government finally heeded our call to implement a national child care strategy. This would have made a difference in my life and the life of my son. We talk about people working multiple jobs to pay the bills. I was one of those single moms who had to work multiple jobs to pay the bills. Part of the reason for that was because of high child care costs. I literally had to work more so I could work.

If members of the House want to support families, then they need to support a universal dental care plan, universal pharmacare and a national child care strategy that ensures that all children are afforded their minimum human right to have access to affordable, accessible, high-quality child care. These services are essential for supporting families, as is the addition of affordable housing with rents geared to income and my bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income.

I want to build a Canada where families are not begging to eat, where we do not make the assumption we are all born with the same privileges, where nobody is living in poverty, and where we stop poor-bashing and deal with what is going on in our country at the very roots of inequality. We can do that as members in the House.

Therefore, today, I call on all members of the House to support the NDP's call, and certainly my bill for a guaranteed livable basic income, and build a Canada for all.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, we spent some time organizing our work at our last in camera meeting. We only received your notice to the effect that Bill S‑203 would be on the agenda at 10 a.m. Do you think it's acceptable, at only an hour's notice, to add an agenda item to study a bill for 15 minutes when a political party is trying to introduce some amendments? Do you believe that's acceptable?

You assumed, on the basis of information from I don't know who—surely not an official representative—that there had been an agreement between the parties, which is not the case. What I am challenging is not the outcome of the agreement, but the fact of introducing a clause-by-clause item on the agenda of the committee meeting at only one hour's notice. I've never seen that.

It has nothing to do with obstruction. I know that Mr. Lake is keen on this bill. I think that if we were to begin this study on Tuesday, when we return from the break, there would be enough time for him to achieve his goal, which is to have his bill adopted prior to World Autism Awareness Day.

However, I disagree with the fact that we should have taken time to organize our work, only to find that on only an hour's notice, after having been contacted unofficially, you should ask us to begin a clause-by-clause study. That's not in keeping with the usual practices.

Government Priorities

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about Bill S-233 and Bill C-223. They are concerned these would cost the government an enormous amount of money. They are also concerned about government cheques disincentivizing people from working and maintaining a job and that taxes would have to be astronomically raised to pay for these bills. The petitioners therefore call on this Parliament to vote against Bill S-233 and Bill C-223 and any other legislation that encourages a universal basic income.

They also call on the government to end the carbon tax and reduce inflation that reduces peoples' purchasing power, and they call for the government to approve any new and existing pipeline proposals and get Canadian energy to tidewater while stimulating job growth in Canada and Alberta.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians who signed this petition are concerned about legislation related to a universal basic income. I have received countless messages from my constituents on this. Petitioners are calling on the government to ensure that paycheques can continue to feed families. They are concerned that billions of dollars have been poured into our economy and about the rising costs of everything because of that. They state that universal basic income disincentivizes people from working and maintaining a job and also that taxes would have to be greatly raised in order to pay for a universal basic income.

The petitioners are calling on the government to vote against Bill S-233 and Bill C-223. They also want an end to the carbon tax and inflationary spending. Finally, they would like to see pipelines and other projects built across Canada to ensure that our freedom energy can help free the world and ensure growth in Alberta and Canada.

Universal Basic Income

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition comes from people across the country concerned about legislation related to universal basic income. I have received countless messages from across the country about this.

The petitioners note that people who would get paycheques regardless of whether they helped or worked in their communities would cost our economy billions of dollars. They state that universal income would disincentivize people from working and maintaining a job and that taxes would need to be greatly raised to pay for this.

As such, the petitioners call on parliamentarians to vote against Bill S-233 and Bill C-223. They want an end to a carbon tax, they want an end to inflationary spending and they want to see pipelines and other projects approved to ensure our economy can grow so there are good jobs for everyone.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

In Winnipeg, we have something that has been named the “drunk tank”. It's slang. People who are intoxicated are put in these cells with a hole in the ground. It's still there in Winnipeg, in my riding. Often, the people who are put in there are residential school survivors, kids aging out of care and sixties scoop adoptees. It's just exacerbating it. I want to put that on the record. I'm glad the new director of Main Street Project is a trailblazer and is changing that abusive, vile practice in our city as rapidly as he can.

You spoke about the social safety net. I put forward a bill in support of a guaranteed livable basic income. It's Bill C-223. We're talking about a financial crisis. My bill is being put forward in addition to current and future government programs in support. We've heard about financial stress, yet I find that nobody is really committed, and the political will is not there to deal with things at the front end. We know there's a direct correlation between violence and poverty.

Have you heard about a guaranteed livable basic income? Do you think that would assist families you serve in terms of supporting good mental health in the home?

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that poverty for those with disabilities is a crisis in this country, and the Liberals have had seven years to address this crisis. This is my second time being elected, and this crisis still has not been addressed, and then I read that it is going to take three years for anybody to even receive this benefit. This is deeply concerning, because we know, according to Disability Without Poverty, that 41% of people impacted by poverty are those with disabilities.

We have had solutions on the table. I will give an example. P.E.I. has put forward a proposal for a guaranteed livable basic income; it is just waiting for support from the federal government. I put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-223, in support of a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, which is supported by disability groups across the country, to lift people out of poverty now.

I am wondering if the hon. member supports a guaranteed livable basic income, especially for persons with disabilities.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I must say that very few bills have elicited such a response as Bill C-223. In my constituency office, I have had thousands of people communicate with me over that particular bill. I will not be supporting it. However—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that this bill is lacking. The Liberals have had seven years to put it in place, but there are no details and there always seems to be quick solutions. I will give a couple of examples. Pipelines received $2.2 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, something the Conservatives supported. The Conservatives were in power forever and had years to do something. There is all this money for corporations and all this money for corporate bailouts, but those with disabilities and organizations have to beg for a tuppence.

Now the minister is saying that people have to wait for three years. I have offered a tangible solution. I put forward a bill, Bill C-223, in support of a guaranteed livable basic income that would lift people out of poverty, in addition to current and future government supports. The Conservatives talk about government waste. I can say there is lots of corporate waste that they continually support.

I am wondering if the member supports my bill, Bill C-223, as he is so worried about lifting people out of poverty. It is a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think debate on Bill C-223 is outside the scope of this legislation.

I approach legislation like this as a father of a young daughter who had a disability when she was born and who passed away from her disability. I met a lot of parents over that time who are taking care of their children until the age of maturity, and the biggest fear they always had is that their children would not be able to provide for themselves. The parents would save through their registered disability savings plan, the RDSP, which was one of the great contributions to the parental system in Canada for looking after children. It was introduced by the late Jim Flaherty when he was the Minister of Finance.

A lot of parents would come to my office and tell me how good it was for them to be given the certainty that when they pass away, it will be a way to look after their children. However, also, nowadays a lot of parents are looking to find out how their child with a disability can both work and have the confidence that comes from work. For those who are unable to work, is there a benefit out there, or is there a way they can get government support for them as well?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his acknowledgement of my private member's bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income.

I share many of his concerns, certainly, like the very clear lack of detail in the bill, the fact that there are no protections in the bill that would actually lift anyone out of poverty and the fact that the minister has stated it would take three years before the first person would even receive the benefit when people are struggling now. This is deeply concerning.

The member seems to be really compassionate in his understanding of human rights and the need to lift people out of poverty. I am wondering if he supports a guaranteed livable basic income for individuals who currently do not have it. We know that a significant number of those with disabilities live in abject poverty, with a lack of response from consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments. We can turn the page on that, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague supports Bill C-223 to put in place a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome any support that lifts persons with disability out of poverty. However, the Liberals have had seven years to put it in place. There are no protections in this bill to ensure that it would lift anybody out of poverty. I put forward a bill in support of a guaranteed livable basic income, Bill C-223, supported by disability groups and organizations through the country, which would lift people out of poverty in addition to current and future government programs and support.

I wonder if my colleague is so committed to really lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty and if he will be supporting my private member's bill, Bill C-223, a framework to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, throughout this debate on the budget we have been talking a lot about the affordability crisis and people being able to make ends meet. Throughout the member's speech he was talking about his constituents, meeting a lot of targets and helping indigenous people in his riding.

One of the proposals the New Democrats have put forward is for a guaranteed livable basic income, which meets the requirements of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I wonder if the member would be supportive of our colleague's bill, Bill C-223, which would support a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's no secret that the EI system is broken. We certainly saw that when the pandemic hit. Government on the fly had to create an entirely new suite of benefits to get money to people who were unable to work in accordance with public health advice in a quick and efficient way. It's no secret that I've been pushing for a guaranteed livable basic income with Bill C-223 to make sure that everybody can live in dignity.

I will continue to push for that, but in the interim, though, the EI process needs to be fixed. You know that I've been on other committees where officials, working in the area, have called the system archaic. I know there are consultations that have been ongoing about ways to modernize this dinosaur system.

My understanding is that division 32 of the BIA will establish an employment insurance board of appeal and limit the social security tribunal. This has been a longstanding commitment of the government. We in the NDP are hearing that these changes fall short of the commitments to create truly tripartite and accountable appeal structures. I'm hoping that the officials could speak to the intent of their amendments, as well as what those amendments would actually do.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Ms. Quinn, one of the focuses of your organization deals with income bridges to address exploitation. I put forward a bill for a guaranteed livable basic income, Bill C-223. Senator Kim Pate has put forward the same bill—exactly the same language—on the Senate side, Bill S-233. Part of the reason I put forward that bill was in response to calls for justice recommendation 4.5 from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, because as you indicated, there's a direct correlation between income security and the increased risk of violence.

Would you agree with me that a guaranteed livable basic income would assist women, girls and two-spirit individuals to be safer from violence?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My question, again, is for the deputy grand chief.

One of the things I called for this time around with my private member's bill, Bill C-223, is to implement a guaranteed livable basic income. That was in response to call for justice 4.5 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Why is that call for justice so critical?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The other thing you mentioned was the correlation between poverty and violence in terms of being able to leave violence.

In fact, I introduced a bill, Bill C-223, in response to this, in addition to current and future government supports and services, including affordable housing with rent geared to income and other kinds of supports.

Do you think a guaranteed livable basic income, based on regional differences and not requiring citizenship, would be a game-changer for helping women and diverse-gendered individuals to leave violence or have a choice to leave violence?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This is for Madam Sekhar.

I really appreciated your presentation on racism and language barriers in terms of accessing services.

You also spoke about income. I have proposed a bill for a guaranteed livable basic income, Bill C-223, not requiring Canadian citizenship for refugee claimants and permanent residents, as a way, in response to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Also, we know there's a direct correlation between violence and poverty and having women actually have a true choice.

Would you agree with me that a guaranteed livable basic income would be a protection factor for women and diverse genders trying to flee violence?

Opposition Motion—Cost of Living

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

The pandemic has made it very clear that we are not all in this together. We are living in a growing corporate dictatorship where some of us are on lifeboats and some of us are sailing on yachts, where the privileges of corporations are increasingly usurping the rights of workers, Mother Earth, individuals and families, and where the divide between the haves and the have-nots is growing in favour of the ultrawealthy who are becoming richer by the minute while more and more people are finding it increasingly difficult to survive.

Meanwhile, many of my constituents are barely able to make rent. The rising cost of food is making food insecurity even more common. The most basic human rights continue to be up for debate in this House while the government continues to reward its corporate friends on the backs of people, including my constituents in Winnipeg Centre. For workers, real wages are falling and Canadian billionaires are becoming richer, including a $78 billion annual increase in their wealth a year after COVID began, an unprecedented pandemic that has left more and more people scrambling to survive.

This increase in their wealth has been generated with a complete disregard for human rights, including the rights of workers. Take, for example, Sobeys, one of Canada's largest grocery chains, its parent company Empire got rid of its $2 an hour pandemic hero pay, like Loblaws and Metro. It was hero pay for workers who put their lives on the line during the pandemic so that people could continue to be fed. Adding insult to injury, most Sobeys stores are not even unionized. It is a company that has fiercely and fearlessly resisted organizing efforts, showing a total disregard for the rights of workers.

This disregard for workers by Sobeys was not because it wanted to keep food costs down for consumers. In fact, people are paying more for groceries than ever, 6.5% grocery inflation, the highest in more than a decade. It is because of greed, uncontrolled greed with CEOs laughing all the way to the bank. Sobeys just reported a quarterly profit of $203.4 million, up from $176.3 million last year, and it is not the only one laughing. In fact, Loblaws saw its fourth-quarter profit more than double compared to last year, with its net earnings available to common shareholders rising to $744 million. Metro grocery reported net profits of $207 million at the end of 2021.

It is uncontrolled greed with no shame, as we witnessed from Sobeys president and CEO Michael Medline, who boasted on a conference in December about how much money they were raking in, stating, “It was a straight-up good quarter, well-executed by our teams across the country.”

It was not “a straight-up good quarter” for my constituents who shop at FreshCo on Sargent Avenue, struggling to put food on the table because every trip to the grocery store is more expensive than the last. It was not “a straight-up good quarter” for workers who had their hero pay taken so that CEOs could line their very deep pockets with more cash. Our economic system is rigged, with corporate greed and wealth borne on the backs of individuals and families that is even impacting their ability to have their most basic human rights respected, including the right to food security.

Seriously, workers and consumers are seeing no benefits from the major grocery chains' record profits, which are rising because prices are rising. Profits are growing because they are cutting workers' pay and sometimes even violating their human rights, including the profits that were made possible by the many migrant farm workers who grow the food that is sold in these stores, some of the most exploited and mistreated workers in the country.

In fact, last December the Auditor General found that the government failed to protect migrant farm workers during COVID-19, revealing that the federal department responsible for keeping them safe did not properly enforce health and safety measures related to the pandemic. At least three migrant farm workers died from COVID, and many more became sick.

For the Liberal government to wilfully turn a blind eye to this human suffering is unacceptable, demonstrating time and time again that it is way too close to its corporate friends. What has the Liberal government done to require large companies like Sobeys, Loblaws and Metro, which have earned windfall profits during the pandemic, to share this wealth with workers and communities to ensure the human rights of workers are upheld? Nothing. In fact, the government has yet to implement a tax on excess profits of banks and insurance companies, despite promising to do so in the last election.

What are Liberals waiting for? They need to immediately implement the 3% surtax and expand it to include big grocery chains, big-box stores and big oil companies that continue to earn record profits. We need this revenue to make life easier for individuals and families who are struggling to afford to live with the skyrocketing cost of living.

It could fund, for example, a new and expanded income support program for seniors, students, people with disabilities and individuals with complex mental health needs and trauma, who are some of the hardest hit by these price increases. It could pay for a national school meal program that would ensure no child ever has to attend class on an empty stomach. It could help fund a guaranteed livable basic income like the one I am proposing in Bill C-223.

It is clearer than ever that we are not all in this together. So many people are just trying to survive at this point, while the wealthy elite have never had it so good. They are in their luxury yachts and rocket ships while more and more people are surviving in lifeboats.

Enough is enough. It is time to grow workers' paycheques, and not CEO bonuses and shareholder dividends. It is time for the biggest corporations that have made a killing during the pandemic to pay their fair share. It is time to put people before profits and give people who are struggling the support they need to survive, and not just to survive but to thrive. It is time for all people to have what they need to live in dignity.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

I only have a limited amount of time.

I agree with you. One of the things that is critical to Bill C-223 is the fact that it's in addition to current and future government programs and support, including accessible affordable housing with rents geared to income.

I'd like Madam Sharpe to respond briefly. I have a couple other critical questions I want to ask both of your organizations.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

A really deep thank you to both of you on the panel for the critical work you do.

Both of you mentioned the need for a guaranteed livable basic income. I'm actually the one who put forward Bill C-223 in response to call for justice 4.5 to implement a guaranteed livable basic income as a way to help mitigate the crisis of violence against indigenous women and girls. Senator Kim Pate currently has Bill S-233, which is being debated in the Senate. It's exactly the same bill with exactly the same wording in both houses of Parliament. we're working jointly on this initiative.

Madam Sharpe and Madam Muise, can you briefly explain why you support the need for a guaranteed livable basic income?

[Gertie Mai Muise]

Okay, I see.

The barriers to support for indigenous women and girls, 2-spirit and LGBTQIA, and men and boys in our community are intersectoral. Every area of work, the determinants of health, all of those things that have an impact on people's vulnerability...each of those systems trying to respond and help has barriers in them. One of the ways we've found that works to help improve the jurisdictional wrangling and the intersectoral lack of coordination—all of those things—is to have community-based teams that navigate those systems to encourage coordination and really encourage linkages to culture-based resources, like traditional knowledge holders, traditional teachers, family and kid networks, and people who've come through systems and survived.

It's really critical to understand barriers, because the way the community understands barriers is very different from what western service systems and service structures see as barriers to helping our communities. That's why it's so critical for any investments to land inside communities with organizations that are indigenous-led, indigenous-governed and indigenous-informed. Now we are seeing a lot of awareness around what the real barriers are, especially during the pandemic. I think we've seen a new understanding among all the stakeholders in the field. There could be some education around it. I think it's always helpful for us to understand what keeps systemic racism at play, and how to interrupt that and create new pathways for safety and wellness.

We have a lot to say on that, and I think our longer brief went into some of those barriers. Actually, when I look at the brief, it has some legislative pieces we are recommending to support Bill C-223, an act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. That was one of the legislative pieces that we had and are currently advancing.

Old Age Security Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a comment wondering why the NDP is always running around fixing Liberal mistakes. Well, it is because the NDP is focused on one thing, and that is helping Canadians. When the pandemic first hit, people were suffering. It was the NDP that pushed for supports for seniors and people with disabilities. The Liberals were not there and the Conservatives were not there. It was the NDP that was pushing for that.

If the pandemic has taught us one thing, it is that we have the ability in the House to make decisions to help Canadians, and we have the capacity to do that. One thing that would really accomplish that, which would go a long way to help seniors and people with disabilities, is a guaranteed livable basic income. We have a private member's bill on that, Bill C-223, which is on the docket.

I am wondering, if Conservatives care about seniors, if they will support that bill.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that we are debating this bill this evening. It is a great step in the right direction. However, this bill alone will not resolve the inequality and poverty that seniors are experiencing. We know that right here in Canada one-third of women over the age of 65 who are single are living in poverty. This is unacceptable. In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith I am hearing from constituents who are seniors and are experiencing poverty in so many ways, such as losing their homes or being unable to keep food in their fridge.

I wonder if the member would agree that supporting this bill and this bill alone will not lift seniors out of poverty. Will he join the many constituents in my riding who are asking for us to support Bill C-223 for a guaranteed livable basic income?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here because Canada's poorest working seniors have been cruelly punished by the government simply for receiving legitimate pandemic supports, as any other working Canadian received.

My New Democrat colleagues and I have been tirelessly raising this issue in the House. I am grateful that the government is finally beginning to address this issue, but it is important to acknowledge the impact that the government's inaction over the past year has had, and the dire circumstances that seniors are currently facing because of the government's mistake and because of its inaction following it.

We have heard stories from across the country. I have spoken to many seniors in my riding of Victoria who have been impacted. I have shared a number of their stories in the House about the struggles they have faced. They have been unable to afford rent. Seniors have been living in motels or living in their cars and experiencing homelessness, hunger and the inability to pay for essential medication because the government spent months knowing that this problem existed but refusing to take urgently needed action.

The Liberal government has known about the GIS-CERB conflict since May, 2021, but it did not bother fixing it until New Democrats raised the issue, again and again, for months. Even before the government called an unnecessary election, we raised the urgency of this issue. We kept raising it, week after week and month after month. With each passing week, and each passing month, more seniors in our ridings were unable to meet their basic needs.

Seniors have shared that this is not just a financial issue. It is also a health issue. When seniors have to choose between medication and food, when they are forced to sleep out in the cold, when they cannot afford transportation to appointments or when they are living with the ever-present threat of eviction, they experience financial hardship, but they also experience medical and mental health crises, depression and suicide.

I support this bill because it finally begins to address the issue, but I am compelled to speak for the seniors who have suffered over the past year.

I think it is also important to acknowledge the fact that the government is not addressing the same conflict that exists with the Canada child benefit. Bill C-12 fixes the GIS clawback for vulnerable seniors, but for low-income families who received pandemic income supports, such as CERB or CRB, the Canada child benefit will still be clawed back next year because Bill C-12 is specific to GIS and not for income-tested benefits.

We are going to have to spend months pushing the government to address how this impacts families. We need a similar solution to the clawback for low-income families. I am glad this bill will be moving forward, because it is going to support seniors. However, it is important to also acknowledge that the guaranteed income supplement does not lift seniors out of poverty. Seniors receiving the GIS are still considered to be living below the poverty line. The GIS, except in some very rare cases, does not actually bring income above the poverty level.

This is why my NDP colleagues and I are pushing for a guaranteed livable basic income. It is why the member for Winnipeg Centre introduced Bill C-223, which, if passed, would establish the first national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. I want to give a shout-out to Basic Income Victoria BC and UBI Works for their advocacy on this critical issue. We have a responsibility to lift people out of poverty and to ensure that seniors, people with disabilities and single parents can meet their basic needs and live in dignity.

We need a basic guaranteed livable income that would make a world of difference for seniors on fixed incomes. We should also create a pension advocacy commission to increase and enhance CPP, OAS and GIS.

I want to take a moment, also, to talk about an organization in my riding. Fateh Care started operating during the pandemic. It provides support for seniors, those living with disabilities, people quarantining and people who are looking for a helping hand when they do not know where else to go. Fateh Care was founded by an incredible family, Harjas and Dr. Navneet Popli. It is one of a kind in Canada. It is a free mobile food bank, and it is available to all those who are struggling to afford or access food, who often do not have transportation to go out and buy it.

I went with Harjas to help deliver food in the mobile food bank, and it was so clear that people in our community are struggling. I want to thank Fateh Care for all the support it gives to seniors in need.

I also want to call on the government to address the underlying causes of food insecurity for seniors, and to commit to a guaranteed livable basic income. Earlier today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons mentioned the need to move this expeditiously through Parliament, and this is what we are debating right now. He said he wished this had been done earlier. Wow. I wish that he had felt that urgency months ago.

The government knew about this issue a year ago. The Liberals failed to address it. We raised this issue many times in the House. After learning about the problem, and after hearing from the NDP advocating for seniors and hearing about the impacts on seniors across the country, the government called an unnecessary election. When we came back to the House, we raised it again and again.

There is a senior in my riding who lost their apartment because of this delay. There is a senior who lost their provincial rental assistance because of this mistake. It requires them to be on the GIS to receive these benefits. There are seniors struggling to pay for essential medication. How can the government explain the delay when speaking to these seniors?

The need for this bill underlines the fact that the government made a mistake. I understand that mistakes happen, but what I do not understand is why the government waited this long to correct its mistake. Why was the government okay letting seniors suffer for a year? More than that, why is the government okay letting seniors suffer year after year?

Even with this fix, too many seniors are living below the poverty line. There is a solution: Ensure they have a guaranteed livable basic income. Close loopholes in offshore tax havens. Ensure multi-millionaires are paying their fair share, and ensure seniors and all members of our communities can live in dignity.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C‑12

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak about Bill C-12 and the needs low-income seniors are facing across the country.

Over the last three years I have had many opportunities to speak with hundreds of seniors in Kitchener. I often knocked on doors in the daytime and who is home in the daytime? It is seniors. I would joke that it was seniors I spoke with most. In those conversations, I would ask them what was most important to them and hear their stories about rent going up, as well as the cost of groceries, transit, in fact the cost of everything. The reality is that the cost of living for seniors is going up much faster than the guaranteed income supplement or old age security. I would hear their anxiety, sometimes their anger, and I promised that as their MP, I would advocate for their interests in this place.

We have to recognize that the maximum amount for a single senior who is eligible for both GIS and OAS is just over $1,600 a month. I would encourage other parliamentarians to reflect on financial planners who might advise that people spend 30% of their income on housing and start doing the math on what it looks like for seniors on low incomes, living on GIS and OAS.

That brings me to what I appreciate in this bill. To me, what the governing party is doing in this bill is admitting that a mistake was made. There never should have been any clawbacks whatsoever on the lowest-income seniors across the country. It is just not right and this legislation addresses that.

I also really appreciate both the Bloc and the NDP, in particular the member for North Island—Powell River and the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for their advocacy in ensuring that these funds are provided as soon as possible, recognizing the situation in which low-income seniors find themselves in Kitchener and across the country as a result of the clawbacks that were made and recognizing that this legislation would only really address this mistake not happening again going forward. The fact that we are addressing it not happening again and that there is a retroactive reimbursement being applied in the last fiscal update is really important.

It is also important for us to step back and notice when there is wild agreement in this place. That certainly was not the case in question period. In fact it is usually not the case in question period, but all day I have heard different parliamentarians tripping over themselves to share how much they are advocating for low-income seniors in their communities, which is quite rare in this place. It does not matter which party. I heard a parliamentarian advocating from every region and part of the country. This, to me, is encouraging and gives me the sense that it is possible, when there is obvious good policy in front of members here, for us to move ahead and get it done.

I will also share where I think we could be going further and faster. The first is with respect to the funds flowing. There was a really wonderful line of questioning, in particular, from the MP for Salaberry—Suroît in committee yesterday, who said the reason that funds are not flowing for all low-income seniors until April 19 is that we have not been investing in the computer systems that our public service relies on to deliver these funds.

I can appreciate that it might not always be politically attractive to be investing in IT, but I feel this is an opportunity for us to recognize that this is how seniors' lives are being affected. There is not a fancy ribbon-cutting, but when those investments are not being made, it directly affects the lives of seniors across the country. To my understanding, it is not for a lack of interest by the governing party in flowing money sooner, or the advocacy of others across the floor, but rather because we have not invested in the IT that we should have invested in years ago. I would encourage all parliamentarians to consider supporting our public service, so it is able to follow through on these important investments.

Second, I want to call out how important it is that we actually have a private member's bill in support of a guaranteed livable income for all. While I wish it were a government bill, the fact that we have Bill C-223, put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre, gives us an opportunity to have a larger conversation recognizing that even seniors who will not have GIS and OAS clawed back are still living in poverty in most regions across the country.

We should be doing so much more to ensure that every senior in the country is at a dignified level of income. These are the folks who have been building the economy and these are our elders. With the guaranteed livable income we would not even be having the conversation we are in the midst of now. I encourage other parliamentarians to consider their support for that private member's bill and their support for moving toward a guaranteed livable income across the country.

I also want to point out the need for us to make more progress on housing. We cannot talk about seniors on low incomes and the importance of addressing the clawbacks if we are not going to be honest that it is housing that is climbing the fastest, which at least is something else that I have heard parliamentarians from every party talk about. Maybe there might be different solutions that are being offered, but at least it is a place for us to start having good, respectful conversations. In Kitchener, there is a 35% increase in the cost of housing and rent.

I think about seniors in Kitchener who are not just seeing the cost of housing go up, but they are seeing a lack of access to dignified housing and also the proximity of that housing to the amenities that they need the most, such as transit stations they need to access. We need to move forward far more quickly when it comes to addressing the rising cost of housing, which means addressing the supply as well as the policies to ensure that homes are for people, for seniors, to live in and not commodities for investors to trade.

The last thing I will mention is the importance for us also to address long-term care. While not the main focus of this piece of legislation, if we are going to be talking about the need to be taking better care of our seniors, we have all recognized the gaps in long-term care. There is the opportunity for the federal government to step in to improve the standards in long-term care, to address the wait times and to address the pay for personal support workers.

In closing, I would encourage all parliamentarians to continue to support this important bill and to get this done, but not to stop here. We must ensure that we move forward quicker, whether it is on the cost of housing, a guaranteed income or ensuring that these reimbursements are provided at the earliest opportunity.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12

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

Madam Speaker, before I speak to this motion, I want to take a moment to recognize a veteran in my riding. On November 22 of last year, at the age of 96, World War II veteran Carl Kolonsky passed away in Campbell River. He is survived by his sons Don and Darryl, his grandchildren and many nieces and nephews. I am sure that he is with his wife of 53 years, Elsie, who passed away in 2000.

The last time that I physically saw Carl, I was at the Campbell River legion in 2019 where we were observing Remembrance Day. I will always hold sacred the photo that he and I took as we were both so looking forward to participating in the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands in World War II, in Holland. I was particularly excited to accompany this tremendous veteran, who had such a spirit of kindness that was tangible to all who knew him. As we know, COVID-19 ended those dreams. Last year, Carl received letters and flowers from a Dutch city thanking him for his tremendous role and work.

Carl was well known in the community for his fighting spirit, which was demonstrated in his service in World War II, for which he was decorated. The loss of Carl has been felt profoundly in Campbell River and by those who loved him most. I thank him for his service, I send continued love to those who loved him the best, and I acknowledge the sorrow of their grief.

Today I am here to speak about seniors. In the spring of last year, the NDP began its persistent warning that the pandemic benefits calculation could have significant impacts on the poorest Canadians. In fact, multiple letters were sent out specifically on seniors and the guaranteed income supplement, otherwise known as GIS, which is a payment that some of the poorest seniors in this country receive. We knew that without thoughtful planning, the most vulnerable would pay, and they have. We have heard from seniors who have had their GIS clawed back, and from parents who have had their child tax benefit clawed back: a source of income specifically to lift children out of poverty.

One senior shared with my office that she had lost her job due to COVID, and that her office just shut down. Between her OAS, her GIS and the small income she was making, she was barely making ends meet. When she lost her job, she was terrified that she would not be able to find another job to fill that important gap, and that she would not be able to make ends meet. She did what so many other Canadians did who lost their jobs: She contacted both her MP's office and Service Canada. Both offices assured her that she was qualified for this funding. However, she was still worried, so she checked in again and was told that there would be no repercussions at all.

In July, 2021, she found out that was simply not the case. She learned that the benefits that she had received made it impossible for her to receive her GIS, and now she is living on $1,000 a month. This senior, living in the Northwest Territories, lived in her car for a month because she could not afford rent. It was a month when the temperature was below zero. I cannot even imagine being put in that position. Not only that, but like so many other seniors across this country, because she lost the GIS, she automatically lost the opportunity to get other territorial or provincial benefits.

We know that, across this country, GIS opens the doors for other provincial and territorial benefits. When seniors lost their GIS, they lost more than just that. This senior lost a further $200 a month because she no longer qualified for the territorial program to compensate people for the higher cost of living they experience in the Northwest Territories. These are impacts that simply cannot be measured because they are so devastating in their impact.

We are here to debate this super motion on Bill C-12. It is a bill that the government promises will make all pandemic payments prior to June, 2022, exempt from taxable income for seniors, and will allow them to finally have their money returned. That sounds good, until it is understood that they have to wait until May.

Seniors have been struggling since July 2021. They were told in December, in the fiscal update, that the government would finally make it right. Then we read the fine print and found out that they would have to wait months and months until they saw that money.

I am listening to seniors. I have heard so many stories. They have shared them with me so bravely and so well. I wonder if the government is actually listening to the seniors who are living through this time and experiencing this devastation.

Let me tell members about another senior. He is a 71-year-old who was working. He applied for pandemic supports because he was no longer working due to the pandemic. Then his GIS was clawed back, which was hard enough in itself. Then, not long after, he was diagnosed with cancer. What is devastating about this is that he could not afford his medication. I do not think it is right. Any person in our country, a country that is profoundly proud of its public health care system, should be able to access the basic medication they need to stay alive and stay healthy. He could not afford the medication for his treatment, and he has completely lost hope. He does not know how he is going to deal with this. He cannot wait until May.

Perhaps one of the most terrible parts of this is that so many hard-working seniors who have committed their lives to this country are losing hope. They do not know who to rely on anymore when they are put into this circumstance and are unable to get the government to listen to them. They were assured by MP offices directly that if they applied for the benefit, they would be eligible and would be okay in the future. One senior told my office that neither her nor her husband would be getting the booster shot because they do not know what the point is. Living does not seem like a viable option in the circumstance they are currently living through. I do not believe that this couple can wait until May.

I want to be clear: This legislation will help. However, it will only help those who can make it until May. With no advance payments, seniors will continue to suffer for months, and so many seniors have already lost so very much. They have lost their homes. They are now living in their vehicles. They have lost their homes in a housing market that means when they finally find a new place to live, it will be at a much higher price. It means they will continue down the pathway of poverty, even with this remedy put in place. They have lost their health because they cannot afford to pay for the medication they need to keep them healthy and cannot afford to pay for food that will keep them healthy. Some of them have lost their lives because they did not have the resources to cover those basic necessities.

Not too long ago, it was brought to my attention that a senior had died and it was directly linked to the clawback of the GIS. After months of not being able to buy her type 2 diabetes medication or buy the healthy food that she requires to maintain her diet, because of the GIS clawback, she was brought into the ICU. Several days later, she succumbed to her health issues.

I have no idea what to say to the people who loved her most. I do not know what any member of the House could say to the people who loved her most. Because of something that was wrong in a process in a system in this place, people gave up everything. We cannot fix that. Perhaps the government has suggestions for me on how I could ever tell this family why this happened.

Early on in the pandemic, the NDP expressed multiple times that the most vulnerable Canadians would suffer. We looked at the policies and processes that were happening, and we knew there had to be some sort of stopgap to make sure that nobody fell through the cracks. Even though we talked about it, asked questions and moved motions in the House to protect people, the steps that needed to be taken were simply not taken.

I think many Canadians are asking themselves, as they look at these dire circumstances, why it takes so long. Why are we letting seniors wait? That is a question that really only the government can answer.

What I believe we need to discuss in this place is why we see continuous lack of planning when we know that something is coming on the horizon that will impact the most vulnerable Canadians in our country. We also have to get into a place where we recognize that, generation after generation, our systems continue to punish the most poor and vulnerable Canadians in our country. We must consider this profoundly and, as a responsibility of all of us as members of Parliament, we have to ask ourselves why our systems punish the poorest. While debating this motion, seniors are going out into the world without medications, without food, without a roof over their heads, without the capacity to pay for the heat that they need to stay warm during a very cold winter, and there are so many more stories our office has heard.

I believe that as a nation we are failing. We are failing to have a very important discussion about the ever-eroding bar of dignity in this country. We are watching the middle class, working class, working poor and poorer move further into poverty every single day. At the same time, we are watching the ultrarich of this country grow and expand their incomes every single year.

This is exactly why I support my friend the member for Winnipeg Centre's Bill C-223, an important bill that would create a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income in Canada.

Research is showing us more and more every year that the ultrawealthy are hoarding money. When we look at the increase of automation and we see how many seniors, persons living with disabilities, people with mental health issues, single moms and working people, every day, are not even having the right to dream in this country that they will one day reach the poverty line in Canada, we must acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong.

One senior sent me this message: “Our GIS has been cut off and the $1,300 that we receive from the government is just not enough to keep shelter overhead. I feel weak and depressed, having no energy. I spend many sleepless nights crying. I never imagined my life would be like this. This is my last appeal to all. Please, I need help getting my medicine. Someone please get me my much-needed medication so I can continue to live.”

This is happening in our country. How is it possible now that it is even too much to ask for the basic medication people need just to sustain themselves?

I want to remind all Canadians that the GIS helps top up people's incomes to just over $19,000 a year if they are single and just over $25,000 if they are in a partnership. While this is happening and these seniors and so many other Canadians are facing devastating poverty, some of the biggest businesses and corporations are seeing the best year they have seen in a decade. These corporations are using the 75% wage subsidy and their profits to pay out their stakeholders. Where is the government on this? Is it chasing after those corporations and saying that if they are doing the best year they have ever done in a decade, how about they pay back some of the Canadian taxpayer dollars that subsidized their business during this time?

Why are we not having a comprehensive discussion about that kind of fairness in this country? It seems reasonable to me and I am happy to have the discussion.

What does the government say as we are seeing all of these seniors have their GIS clawed back, the poorest seniors in our country? What does the government say when we see families who are begging for more money because they had their child tax benefit clawed back and they cannot afford to feed their children? I hear nothing but silence, maybe some crickets singing a song.

In my office, we receive calls, emails and letters from seniors and those who love them the most. They are desperate, they are scared and they are tired. I have spoken to many anti-poverty groups formally and informally. I have spoken with seniors organizations and I have heard the voices of many seniors.

I have stood up in the House alongside my NDP colleagues and the member for Elmwood—Transcona and told the stories of these seniors because I want their voices to be heard. This includes the senior who told us that she has $70 at the end of each month after she pays for her basic necessities to cover the cost of food and medication.

There is also the senior who told me that her OAS only goes far enough to pay her rent and her utilities. At the end she has nothing left. She is living 100% off whatever the food bank provides for her. There is also the senior who wrote me that her niece bought her some food, but cannot help her buy her medication. She just needs her medicine. She told me she wonders if it would be better for her to simply die and no longer be a burden to her family.

We are in this place, and we are debating the lives of seniors as though the people who built our country, whatever their role, whatever their income bracket, do not matter. I believe they do matter. If the government does not want to listen to me, will it listen to the seniors who are crying out for help?

How about the group of seniors I heard from who told me that, when they heard the December economic statement update, they were excited. There was money coming. They arranged collaboratively to go to several banks. They went in carrying the economic update. I hope everybody has that picture of these seniors walking in with the economic update in their hands. They pointed to the line that said that they would be getting their money back, and they asked for a line of credit. It would help feed them and pay rent so they could stay in their homes.

Every single bank denied them. They were denied because the banks told them the economic update did not have a date or a promise of the amount that seniors would be paid. There was no certainty for the banks.

When I heard this story, I wondered why, in this country, seniors have to go into debt just to get the money they desperately need to survive and which the government has admitted it owes them.

That leads me to another question. When will this one-time payment be, and how much will it be? It needs to be that full income for the year. I have to say, and I have said it before, it will not fix the wounds that have been loaded onto these seniors.

I also want to talk about the many seniors who have gone to these predatory lending organizations. I spoke to one who said he has thousands of dollars of interest from one of these organizations. This senior is going to get that money and all of it is going to go to that predatory lending institution. That is another problem we have to fix.

I really hope that the government not only listen to those seniors who are crying out, but also to the people who advocate for them. One advocate is Laura Tamblyn Watts of CanAge, who said about Bill C-12:

This bill takes an important step forward in protecting vulnerable seniors.... However, this does not yet address the harsh reality faced by low income seniors who have had their GIS clawed back. CanAge has consistently raised the alarm that waiting until May for a one-time payment does not help put a roof over their heads, food on their tables or medications in their cupboard.

There is also Campaign 2000, which has been urgently calling for an advance payment of at least $2,500. Campaign 2000 has said that is pleased the minister has introduced Bill C-12, as this will surely give low-income seniors a sense of relief and security. However, they also say that it is of the utmost importance to address the current and urgent issue of their GIS payments that have already been clawed back for months, as seniors have been trying to find ways to make ends meet, and with the sudden loss of their GIS, the situation is getting more dire every day. Campaign 200 notes that the mental and physical health of seniors is deteriorating by the day, and in worse cases, they have heard of seniors losing their lives to suicide and illness.

In closing, I have no words to say to these seniors that will make this better. All I can hope for is that the government will finally take the much needed steps to get money in their bank accounts and to help them out if they have lost their low-income housing, so they are not put in a position, even with these resources, that they cannot afford to live because the rate of their rent is just far too high.

I would say to the government to listen to the advocacy groups and get this advance payment out immediately. There is no time to waste. Lives have already been lost, and there are so many lives that are on the line.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely. I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-223, to implement a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. There has been a lot of research on it in Canada, Manitoba being the place for research in the MINCOME study. We know that when we invest in people, it is good for the economy, it is good for people and it saves lives.

There has been cross-partisan support for it. It is a practice that has been implemented in other places in the world, with guaranteed livable basic income programs. This would be a game-changer. This would save lives. It is time to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very specific question. I would not want to speak about something I am not familiar with, as I have not read the bill she mentioned. However, I completely agree with her that we must address the issue of poverty.

I mentioned that the rising cost of living is having a devastating effect on so many people, especially the most vulnerable. I am thinking, for example, of seniors and middle-class families, who are dealing with the rising cost of living and inflation. We agree that we must do more for these people. Once I have read the bill my colleague mentioned, I will gladly discuss it with her.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's acknowledgement of the importance of specific issues in our ridings being in the throne speech so we can best begin dealing with them. Too many in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, for example, are struggling to get by. Over half of the lone-parent families here in my riding are living in poverty. We all know that Canadians deserve to live with dignity, security and human rights.

Does the member agree with the constituents of Nanaimo—Ladysmith who are asking the government to make the decision to end poverty, implement Bill C-223 and develop a framework for guaranteed livable, basic income?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member talked about fairness and equity for indigenous people living in Canada. My colleague has put forward something that was called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: a guaranteed livable basic income. Would the member, in support of ensuring there is equality and fairness, support the member for Winnipeg Centre's bill, Bill C-223?

National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-223, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to introduce the national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income act.

I would like to start by thanking the member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona for seconding my bill, my riding of Winnipeg Centre, the Basic Income Canada Network, Basic Income Manitoba, Coalition Canada, the Basic Income Canada Youth Network, Senator Kim Pate, former Senator Hugh Segal and so many other anti-poverty activists across the country who contributed to the development of this bill.

As we continue to find ways to make it through the pandemic, we know that those who were already left behind are even further behind. This bill is in response to calls to implement a guaranteed livable basic income from indigenous, territorial, provincial and municipal jurisdictions that clearly recognize the need to modernize our social safety net. A GLBI is not a panacea, but a way forward to modernize our social safety net in addition to current and future government programs and supports. It would ensure that all people have the necessary supports and resources to live with dignity, security, respect and human rights as affirmed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I once again would like to thank my constituents and the basic income movement for their support. This is a people's movement.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)