Debates of April 20th, 2020

COVID-19 Pandemic

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just not sure that I would describe the health care system as “these things”. It is much more important than that.

My colleague did raise an important question, however. Compared to many other countries, such as South Korea, it seems that Canada did not really learn anything from SARS. After the 2003 epidemic, an advisory committee recommended a control fund, but the fund was never fully funded. I would like to point out that my colleague's party did not fund it either even though it was in power for eight years, including at that time.

In addition, I think we need to do more to make our medical equipment here and make enough of it to keep health workers safe. There will be a reckoning soon enough, but it is already clear to me that not enough was done in terms of preparation over the past few years.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian emergency response benefit alleviated financial hardship for many Canadians, but unfortunately, too many are still without emergency relief. I have a long list of constituents and businesses that are currently missed by all of the relief programs that have been announced.

I have a constituent in my riding who is working part time and taking care of an elderly parent at home. In December, her father was hospitalized with congenital heart failure. When he came back home, she quit her job to care for him full time. By March, her father's condition had improved enough that she was able to start looking for part-time work again. Then the pandemic hit. She is viewed simply as someone who quit her job, and therefore, she is not eligible for help and is now struggling to pay her bills.

I have another constituent who was working two jobs. She lost the income from her main job and since her secondary job brings in slightly more than $1,000 per month, she is ineligible for assistance.

I have been contacted by students, some in the middle of their studies and some about to graduate. Students in the middle of their programs rely on summer jobs to pay their living expenses and to save for the school year ahead. Without those jobs, they do not know how they are going to pay their rent and grocery bills for the coming months. Some are uncertain if they will be able to go back to school in the fall and continue their studies. Graduating students are in a very tough spot as well. They are coming out of years of school, and they are looking forward to entering the workplace. Instead, they are facing a bleak reality and have nowhere to turn for help.

I have heard from seniors and people with disabilities. These Canadians are surviving on fixed incomes without any buffer for increased costs related to the pandemic. They are experiencing stress, anxiety and insecurity over being unable to cover their basic needs.

With each passing day, too many Canadians are getting closer to losing their businesses, their homes and their dreams. The stress and sense of hopelessness is taking a serious toll on mental health. Individuals, communities, cities, regions and our national economy will all be severely negatively affected if we allow these people and businesses to fall through the cracks.

What our current crisis has revealed more clearly and urgently than ever is that Canada needs a guaranteed livable income. A GLI is not a radical idea. It is an idea whose time has come. Imagine a safety net that captures everyone. For both social and financial reasons, Greens have been advocating for a GLI for years, and the Green Party caucus has been working to advance the national conversation on a guaranteed livable income.

My hon. colleague from Fredericton spoke about the need for a GLI in her speech in the House of Commons during the emergency session a month ago. My hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands brought it up again in the House a week and a half ago. A guaranteed livable income is an idea that the Green Party has been promoting since long before any Greens achieved the honour of taking a seat in this place. It is an idea that has gained support across the political spectrum, because it is a sound and sensible thing to do.

A guaranteed livable income is a fair system that alleviates financial hardship and rewards work. It would replace our patchwork of federal and provincial programs with a single, universal, unconditional cash benefit. The principle is to establish an income floor below which no Canadian could fall. The amount would be based on the cost of living in each region the same way a living wage is calculated. The benefit would be progressively taxed back according to income. Allowing low-income workers to retain the full benefit would be a strong incentive to continue working. There would be no big clawbacks that create disincentives.

The GLI would eliminate extreme poverty and free up our social services to focus on our mental health crisis and addiction crisis. An emergency guaranteed livable income could be set up to automatically make a payment to every Canadian with a social insurance number. Those who did not need the payment would have it taxed back by the CRA in the next tax season.

A guaranteed livable income in normal times would replace federal transfers for social assistance, disability supports, the old age supplement, the guaranteed income supplement for the elderly, the Canada child benefit for parents with children and the Canada workers benefit for the poor, all of which are very guaranteed livable income-like programs.

Because it is a benefit all Canadians would receive, a guaranteed livable income would eliminate the social stigma associated with needing income assistance. We would no longer have to pick apart people's lives to ensure they are eligible.

A GLI would make it possible for more people to upgrade their education and skills, increasing employability and wage-earning capacity.

Studies and pilot programs have shown that a guaranteed livable income or universal basic income improves the health outcomes of low-income people. They can afford nutritious food and a place to live, and long-term stress associated with poverty is decreased. These are just the broad strokes.

The benefits of a GLI are many, but right now, in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis, there is one potential benefit that stands out. Delivering a single, universal, unconditional cash benefit to every Canadian would be simple. Because a GLI would replace our current patchwork of benefit programs, it would dramatically simplify the administration required and save money there as well.

Everyone would receive a monthly payment. Most of the time, most people would not really need it and the funds would flow back to the government through taxes. However, when circumstances change, whether it is one person who loses a job or millions, having a guaranteed livable income in place would help us weather the storms ahead.

There are other storms coming. We know we are in a climate crisis. Epidemiologists and scientists have told us that we can expect more pandemics, we can expect more emergencies, we can expect more situations where people will lose their jobs and lose their homes as we struggle to deal with this climate crisis.

A guaranteed livable income would allow us to navigate future challenges without the stress, anxiety and hopelessness that too many Canadians are enduring now.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has often brought up the topic of a guaranteed livable wage, even long before the pandemic set in, so this is not necessarily talking about the pandemic.

Would he be willing to scrap EI, OAS and all of these other programs run by the government, in favour of this proposed guaranteed livable income?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the idea. Right now, we have a patchwork of different systems that people have to apply to, including welfare provincially or disability. There would be top-ups for people who have no ability to work, seniors or people with disabilities. That way, we would eliminate the bureaucracy of picking through people's lives to determine whether they are eligible for social assistance or a Canada emergency response benefit when we have another crisis.

Yes, it is an overarching program that would work with the provinces and the federal government, and we would need to negotiate it between the provinces and the federal government to make it work.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to know his party's position on the government's intention to support the oil industry with credit measures and the program to clean up orphaned wells.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to support the workers in the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry has been dining out on Canadian resources and skipping out on the bill, and leaving these orphan wells. It has been taking its profits and then declaring bankruptcy and leaving orphan wells. We have a huge mess in the oil sands that is going to need to be cleaned up. This is work that needs to be done and there are oil and gas workers who can do that work.

There is also lots of potential with oil wells. About 10% of them are good for geothermal energy creation, and that has been studied and is something that can be done to actually create revenue from some of these orphan wells.

As the price of oil drops, we are also seeing these folks who have the expertise in drilling are going to be able to create geothermal wells as well. We are going to be able to start moving toward renewable because, let us face it, we are not going to be able to compete with Saudi Arabia when it decides it wants to drop the price of oil the way that it has. We are dealing with a geopolitical strife on the oil front.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech highlights the privilege in this place and the fact he has been a part of the process all day long, and Canadians would not even have heard that if this day had not happened. He has appreciated it too, just as we are suggesting, that to be in this place is an important part of our democracy.

That said, I was part of the human resources committee. The basic income guarantee, or whatever it is called, is a great idea in theory but there is a huge cost to it. It is not just the cost in terms of money but also in terms of all the other social aspects of it. We estimated it would cost $100 billion per year to run the program.

I am glad the member is supporting oil and gas workers too. It is great to hear the Green Party actually supporting oil and gas workers. Workers in my neck of the woods who are in oil and gas central in British Columbia will appreciate his comments.

However, the big question I have for you is how are you going to pay for a $100 billion program with such a decline in natural resource development, which your party helped cause?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. members to place their questions through the Speaker and not directly across the aisle.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can take any credit for the drop in oil prices and what has happened in the oil field. I am sorry, but it would be great if I could.

I imagine a better world. I imagine a cleaner world and dealing with climate change and the climate crisis.

We already pay $173 billion between the federal government and the provinces for the network of social programs that we use, so we would just re-tweak that money and get rid of the welfare programs and all of these additional little programs and create one large program that would work between the provinces and the federal government, and make it fair and have a system where people get taxed back when they do not need it. Then we would not have to worry about bailing people out.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 8:10 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that the time provided for debate on the motion has ended today.

Sittings of the House during COVID-19 Pandemic—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised earlier today by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith concerning sittings of the House during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the question raised by the hon. member deals with the manner in which the House will conduct business involving all members in the coming weeks, as the country continues to be confronted by a crisis which is without precedent in recent history, I thought it important to return to the House with a ruling quickly.

During his intervention, the member alleged that the rights and privileges of several members would be violated by any motion to proceed with the business of the House while the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing. According to the member, many of his colleagues are unable to physically be in Ottawa to participate in debate because of their obligation to follow quarantine orders when they return to their respective province. In response to the exceptional circumstances we are facing, the member requested that the Chair postpone the resumption of the House business to a later date, in accordance with public health guidelines.

It is important to recall that although the Speaker fully understands the sentiments expressed by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, he is bound by the Standing Orders and decisions of the House in this matter. The house has the exclusive right to govern its internal affairs, schedule its work and establish the conduct of its proceedings. In this regard, during the sitting of Saturday, April 11, a decision was made to adjourn until today, and this order was respected. It is not within the Speaker's purview to question a decision of this nature made by the House.

I also wish to underscore that, both in the motions that the House has adopted in the past few weeks and again today, there has been a recognition of the very particular circumstances in which we find ourselves. For example, the House has recognized the need for members to respect physical distancing and has provided ways that members can participate in proceedings remotely. These are but two examples of how, with the co-operation of members from all sides, the House has shown flexibility in adjusting its rules and practices and demonstrated that our proceedings are quite adaptable. In addition, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been charged with evaluating other ways of managing business in the current circumstances and I am confident that it will be able to suggest an acceptable course of action for everyone.

The motion passed today is another example of this approach, which permits the House to decide how it wishes to conduct its affairs. A careful reading of the motion does not reveal anything that could in any way prevent members from travelling to Ottawa to participate in the proceedings of the House.

Instead, their movements would be limited upon returning to their community, as the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith explained. I know that all hon. members wish to follow the advice of our public health agencies, as the House Administration has been doing from the beginning of this crisis. I also recognize that for those members who travel to participate in the proceedings of the House, those instructions may have significant consequences for them and their families. However, the key question is to determine whether or not they can fulfill their parliamentary duties.

In my view, it is not for the Chair to dictate to members the manner and degree to which they will participate in the proceedings of the House; as the House has itself determined, the choice rests with them. For this reason, I cannot find there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case.

I thank members for their attention.

Before we return to our constituencies to resume our work there, I would like to take a moment to extend my thanks to all those who continue to provide support so the House of Commons can fulfill its responsibilities to Canadians.

I thank all the members who are here in the House. They are working under unusual conditions, and I appreciate it.

I would also like to thank our staff in Ottawa and in the members' constituencies for their unflagging support as members carry out their duties both here in the chamber and in the communities they represent.

The amazing House Administration, Library of Parliament and Parliamentary Protective Service teams also deserve our sincere appreciation. Their support made it possible for us to sit today confidently and safely. I thank them for showing Canadians that the House of Commons is hard at work despite the pandemic.

Finally, my heartfelt thanks go to the women and men who care for us, keep us safe and keep us fed. We are deeply grateful to all front-line and health workers who, under the most difficult circumstances, are making every effort to ensure we will get through this together stronger than ever.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 25, 2020, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:18 p.m.)