Bill S-233

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

[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.

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.

Criminal Code

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In regard to the vote on Bill S-233, I am asking for the consent of the House to reflect on the record that the vote in the House was unanimous in its opposition to organ harvesting. I erred when I used the app in my vote. I am looking for the consent of the House to make that vote unanimous.

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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm tempted to tease Mr. Zuberi and say that wasn't a very concise intervention about being concise, but I appreciate his comments.

If Mr. Oliphant will forgive me, I'm a relatively new member to this place in terms of how procedure works. I always need a refresher so I appreciate him taking the time to ensure that I'm fully up to speed. I hope we'll get to hear from him about the risks of using Google Translate. I always find it edifying when he shares that information.

My intention in saying I will cede the floor to Mr. Morantz is, of course, not to imply that I have the power to give the floor to anyone but it's more based on what I thought was the speakers list. The chair is nodding so I assume that means that though I clearly failed in describing the procedures in the most formal way it is in fact Mr. Morantz next.

I'll wrap up my comments for the moment by responding to Mr. Zuberi's point with respect to the question of topicality and the amendment and then making a couple of comments about the piece of legislation that I was going to speak to.

The amendment we're debating is an amendment to the current motion. It says:

and that this study not take place until after the completion of the committee's studies on Ukraine, Vaccine Equity and Taiwan as well as studies on legislation sent from the House of Commons; and further that it not take place until the subcommittee on agenda and procedure submits a report prescribing the manner in which the study is to proceed;

In the context of this amendment it would be fully appropriate to make arguments about the importance of the studies on Ukraine, the importance of the study on vaccine equity, the importance of the study on Taiwan, and the importance of the pieces of legislation, because that is precisely what this amendment says. It says that those three studies, as well as the legislation, should be given priority over the content of this motion. Very clearly, there are five things: Ukraine, vaccine equity, Taiwan, Bill S-211, and Bill S-233, I believe. There's another bill, S-223, that has some folks very excited so I'm careful not to mix those up. Those are the topics that we're invited to discuss in the form of this amendment.

The other piece of legislation, S-233.... Is it Bill S-223? Okay, it's Bill S-223. It's my bill and I've forgotten the number. Bill S-223 is my bill and Bill S-233 is the controversial one. I'm sorry, it's not my bill. Again, we're being precise on a Monday morning after I've taken a red eye and that's good.

Where was I here? The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. This bill is designed to combat the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It also contains a provision by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they have been involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. We know that there's organ harvesting and trafficking sadly that happens in other countries and there are limits obviously to what we can do about human rights violations that happen in other countries. But one important step we can take is ensuring that we as Canada and that Canadians individually are not complicit in those violations of human rights that take place overseas.

One of the reasons we see forced organ harvesting and trafficking is demand for those organs. If people are coming from other countries to receive an organ that was taken from someone without consent that creates a demand for organs to be taken without consent. That's where we can try to intervene on the Canadian side and confront the issue of prospective demand.

These are two very important pieces of legislation, Bill S-223, and Bill S-211. I'm hopeful that the committee will be able to get to them and proceed with them as well as the other important items on the floor.

I did have a few other things I was going to say but I will finish my remarks for the moment. I suspect next we'll hear from Mr. Morantz and I'm looking forward to his intervention and the interventions of other members as well.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today.

The first petition is on Bill S-233, which would make it a criminal offence for people to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. It would also create a mechanism by which people could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they are involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

Members may be interested to note that this bill will be up for debate on Friday. I commit to stop introducing petitions on it as soon as the House passes it.

[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]

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?