SoVote

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

May/8/24 5:03:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member on the finance committee. We have both spoken about the importance of productivity in the economy, though maybe from different perspectives. The government has been in power for nine years now and this is its latest budget. There is a gap between U.S. and Canadian incomes and GDP per capita, which is now at a record deviation, meaning that the gap between what Canadians are earning and what Americans are earning has never been greater. At what point will that gap start to be reduced?

95 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/8/24 5:04:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I, too, enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the finance committee. The issue around productivity and business investment is not a new one in Canada. Actually, we have been tackling productivity for more than 30 years, and business investment for the last 20-plus years. I would say that it is not just federal budget 2024 where we have made huge investments in our economy, in our economic infrastructure and in Canadians so that we can continue to give Canadians the tools and the skills to be able to succeed and for Canada to have a prosperous economy, both now and in the future. I think a number of the measures that we have in our budget will help with the productivity issue, as well as with the business investment issue.

134 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

May/8/24 5:05:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in 2021, the Centre de recherche sur les milieux insulaires et maritimes, CERMIM, set up the LOREVA project. This is a project to locate, recover and recycle ghost fishing gear. Ghost fishing gear refers to the snow crab traps that have remained on the bottom of the St. Lawrence. The project was financed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' ghost gear fund. We developed a technique using an underwater robot that preserves the seabed. It is one of the finest techniques currently available for preserving marine species. We collected over 200 traps and more than 35 kilometres of rope. That is the equivalent of five tonnes of plastic material that was recovered from the St. Lawrence. There is nothing in the budget that renews funding for this ghost gear program. I wonder why the government refuses to extend funding for this project.

145 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/8/24 5:06:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question, but I actually do not know the answer. I will say that I am very proud that we have made a historic amount of investment in research, scholarships and new strategic research infrastructure in our federal budget 2024. We have put $5.9 billion, which includes $2.4 billion for core research grants and to foster top-tier Canadian talent via more scholarships and fellowships through Canada's research granting councils. I am not sure if any of those dollars will actually help with the very important issue that my colleague has mentioned, which should be addressed.

107 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

May/8/24 5:07:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed in the budget. As I have said very clearly, I think auto theft is an issue in this country, but the government put $45 million toward auto theft and $22 million toward the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. That sends a really strong message that this country values cars more than it values indigenous peoples. I am hoping that the government can do better, because that was shocking. Today, my private member's bill will be put forward for second reading. It is in support of putting in a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income in response to call for justice 4.5 of the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls, which is something all parties have committed to uphold, all 231 calls for justice. I am wondering whether the hon. member will support my call to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

158 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/8/24 5:08:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the hon. member's bill. In the last Parliament, I also had a private member's bill to introduce a guaranteed basic income. I was very proud to do so, so I am very happy that the member is also supportive of that. On indigenous peoples in Canada and funding in the federal budget 2024, I am very proud of the historic investments our government has made over the last eight and a half years that we have been in government. I know that we have a lot more to do, and I look forward to working with the member and other colleagues in this House to continue to strengthen and invest in a new nation-to-nation relationship.

125 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/8/24 5:09:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to the intervention made by the member for the New Westminster—Burnaby on Wednesday, May 1, in relation to respect for the authority of the Chair. Page 311 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to functions performed by the Speaker with respect to enforcing the rules that guide the work of this place, states, “the Speaker presides over debate in the House and is responsible for enforcing and interpreting all rules and practices and for the preservation of order and decorum in the proceedings of the House.” The Speaker has the ultimate authority regarding the interpretation and application of the rules of the House and its Standing Orders. The Speaker is the final authority on these matters. Since 1965, Speakers' rulings have been closed to appeals. They are final. Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to the rulings by the Speaker, states, “Once the Speaker has ruled, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion.” This applies not only to procedural matters, but also to questions for the maintenance of order and decorum. Our procedural authorities are definitive on this particular point. Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in relation to addressing the maintenance of order and decorum, also states: The Speaker can call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive to the order of the House. For example, if it is a question of unparliamentary language, the Speaker usually asks the Member to rephrase or withdraw the word or expression. If the Speaker has found it necessary to intervene in order to call a Member to order, he or she may then choose to recognize another Member, thus declining to give the floor back to the offending Member.... The most severe sanction available to the Speaker for maintaining order in the House is “naming”, a disciplinary measure reserved for Members who persistently disregard the authority of the Chair. It is both unusual and unfortunate that the Speaker has had to invoke this sanction. We need to be mindful that these extreme situations do not become normalized in our proceedings. Finally, I would like to address the allegations of bias on the part of the Speaker that have been raised by some members in the House and outside the House. Page 323 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the impartiality of the Chair, states: Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker (an allegation of bias, for example) could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly. On two occasions, newspaper editorials were found to contain libellous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the House in one instance to be a contempt of its privileges and in the other a gross breach of its privileges. In 1981, a Minister complained that remarks directed to Speaker Sauvé by the Leader of the Opposition constituted an attack on the former’s authority and impartiality. The following day, the Minister rose on a question of privilege calling for the matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. However, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his remarks and the matter was taken no further. Despite this clear precedent, we have seen many recent examples of Conservative MPs engaging in exactly this conduct, including numerous tweets that can be found on X from April 30. In one day alone, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the “Liberal Speaker”; the member for Edmonton Manning also referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and stated, “The speaker is doing [the Prime Minister's] bidding”, and so on; the member for Edmonton West referred to “The shamelessly partisan Liberal Speaker”; and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and repeated this in a video that she also posted on X. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: This is not necessarily something that should have clapping from across the way. Mr. Speaker, also on April 30, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland tweeted, “The partisan Liberal Speaker”. The member for King—Vaughan also referred to the “Liberal speaker”. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referred to, again, the so-called Liberal Speaker in a video on X and said that the government is “being protected by a Speaker who is obviously biased to ensure that they have the protection from accountability and questions”. Finally, on the same day, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South referred to “the Liberal Chair”. Furthermore, on May 1, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry stated in a tweet how partisan the Liberal Speaker had been the day before, while the member for Lethbridge, in a May 2 post on X, referred to the “Speaker's partisan decision”. Members need to be mindful that the actions of the Speaker must not be criticized in a frivolous manner. It undermines not only the authority of the Chair but also the authority of the chamber. Page 323 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” On December 15, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition moved a substantive motion regarding the conduct of the Speaker. The motion did not find consensus, and as such, the matter is closed, but despite this, Conservatives continue to ignore the rules, ignore the precedent, and openly criticize the Speaker, which is very serious. The Leader of the Opposition wants to declare himself to be above the law by vowing to take away the rights of Canadians through the abuse of the notwithstanding clause. He also wants to destroy any institution that gets in his way, which includes the House of Commons. While the official opposition wants to destroy our institutions, we will continue to stand up for them. I urge the Speaker to reflect on the behaviour of members of the official opposition. One need only reflect on the Conservatives' reactions as I was reading this important address on the issue.

1076 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/24 5:17:36 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for the input. I believe that the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill is rising on the same point of order.

26 words

Calgary
Hill

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

May/8/24 5:17:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you consider the following. Many times, people of all political stripes in this place will raise concerns about the term “misinformation”, or something is happening with misinformation. It is actually a serious problem. However, we cannot characterize “misinformation” as language that is used to criticize government policy. That is often what happens with the government; it tries to characterize the word “misinformation” as language that criticizes the government. When we talk about decorum and about use of language, we have to be very careful to not define unparliamentary language as language that is used to hold the government to account. I understand that the government might not like being held to account. However, it is the job of the official opposition, as the Standing Orders lay out, for us to do that. I would ask you to consider that. With respect to my colleague's other point he made about the Speaker, it is fact that the Speaker of the House of Commons made a video in his parliamentary robes that was shown at a Liberal Party convention. Much contention erupted in this place over that. Not only is it incumbent on people in this place to maintain decorum in their relationship with the Speaker, but it is also incumbent on the Speaker to maintain neutrality and its appearance in this place, without fail. I would also say that it is the role of the Speaker to bring the light, not the heat, to the House of Commons. Those are all things I hope the Speaker considers when responding to my colleague's rather inflammatory comments.

278 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/24 5:19:43 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for the further update. I believe that the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on the same point of order.

27 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/8/24 5:19:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the precedent in the House was established by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he was Speaker. It is very clear that for a member of Parliament to viciously attack the Speaker of the House of Commons is a serious transgression of our rules and the precedent that has been set. I certainly want to review the blues from what was just presented. I find the comments, quite frankly, outrageous, and they are not in keeping with the rules of the House of Commons. In the past, when there has been that serious of a transgression, it has been incumbent on the member of Parliament to rise in the House and apologize to the Speaker. That has certainly been the process we have undergone in the past when there have been these kinds of transgressions. Certainly, the members who have been cited could help their situation, because of course they have the option of deleting the social media posts and of apologizing in the House. Of course, the Chair has the ability to ask for those apologies, and I would ask the Speaker to consider that as he is looking at what has been clear precedent set in the House in the past: that one cannot attack or insult the Speaker of the House of Commons, elected by all members of Parliament.

226 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/24 5:21:24 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. members for their further input.

9 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC)

May/8/24 5:21:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The bill before us is a combination of the worst features of Liberal budgets over the past nine years. It is more out-of-control spending, more massive deficits, higher debt, higher interest payments and more waste. After nine years of Liberal budgets, everyone agrees that Canada is a mess. Listening to the Prime Minister over the last few weeks, we have heard him say just how broken he believes that this country has become since he became the Prime Minister. His admissions have been frank. He has said that Canada is no longer fair for Canadians. He said that life sucks under his leadership. He has said, “It used to be that the deal was, if you worked hard at a good job, you could afford a home. That doesn't seem the case anymore.” He has talked about the hardship that he has caused: In today's Canada, more people are renting than ever before and that number is growing at double the rate of those able to buy a new home compared to a decade ago. Nearly two thirds of young Canadians rent their homes and they spend a greater share of their income on housing than other generations. He has talked about the desperation that he has caused: “The idea of a really strong, exciting future seems further and further away now than it did just a few years ago...[the] loss of hope and optimism is devastating for people's morale.” He also said: Maybe young people want to start a family, but they don't know how they can afford something bigger than a one-bedroom apartment and with the costs of groceries, monthly bills and all the other realities of life going up, up, up, well, that can make it hard to save for the future, hard to get ahead. The Prime Minister is right. Over the past nine years, Canadians' lives have become harder. People are suffering more today than at any other time in recent generations. Over two million Canadians are lining up at food banks every month because they cannot afford to feed themselves. There are networks of Canadians sharing tips on how to dumpster-dive because they do not have enough money to pay for food. Mothers are adding water to their kids' milk so that it will go further. Homeless encampments are now popping up in communities that have never witnessed this type of homelessness or hopelessness before. Seniors are turning down the heat in their homes during freezing winters because they are unable to afford to heat their home anymore. Canadians are suffering, and the Prime Minister has been forced to admit it, but he seems curiously oblivious as to how all of this happened. At least he wants people to believe he has not intentionally devastated their lives. He seems legitimately dumbfounded by it all. I half expect him to launch an inquiry to try to figure out who did this to Canada. Who has been in charge for the past nine years? It is not a secret: He did it. His recklessness and extremist economic policies have devastated the lives of Canadians of every generation across this country. Over the past nine years, he has doubled the national debt, driving inflation to 40-year highs and forcing interest rates to skyrocket faster than at any other time in our history. Over the past nine years, he has made it easier on his wealthy friends to become wealthier, while the middle class and those trying to join it no longer dream of doing better. They just hope that they can survive. Seriously, over the past nine years, the Prime Minister has added more to the national debt than every other prime minister before him combined. That is a staggering stat. He has doubled the national debt in Canada in just nine years. He has added more to the debt while he has been Prime Minister than all 22 previous prime ministers added together over 147 years. He was warned that the debt would cripple our national economy. He was warned that his policy of printing and pouring $600 billion into the economy, not backed by economic growth, would drive up inflation, followed by sharp increases in the interest rates. He laughed it off, saying that the interest rates are at record lows, and he disregarded the simplest of economic principles by claiming that interest rates would remain low for a very long time. However, his ignorance of economic and monetary policy did not save Canadians from the inevitable fallout of his reckless deficit spending. Inflation skyrocketed to levels not seen in 40 years, driving up the price of everything. Food, homes, vehicles and all of life's essentials became more expensive as the Prime Minister's newly printed cash chased fewer goods. In response to the Liberal-created inflation crisis, the Bank of Canada tried to douse the flames by increasing interest rates, just like the Prime Minister had been warned would happen. Rates shot up faster than at any time in our history. Those higher rates forced some families out of their homes. Those needing to refinance or renew their mortgages faced higher payments, and some of those have doubled. Those who were forced to sell or who lost their homes are now forced into an overheated rental market, driving up rental rates even further. Since the Prime Minister got elected, mortgages have doubled, interest payments have doubled, and now rent has doubled, and the crisis has grown and expanded. Unlike he promised, everyone is paying higher interest rates. Everyone who has a student loan, small business loan, line of credit or who has any loan of any type, is now paying the price for the Prime Minister's extremist and lazy economic policy. The horrifying reality is not only that Canadians are being forced into austerity in their personal lives by this Prime Minister's reckless deficit spending, but also that Canadians are now paying the price at the national level as well, with higher interest rates on the national debt, a debt that is now twice the size from when the Liberals took office. The devastating information found in the Liberals' budget document, which was just released a couple of weeks ago, is the revelation that Canadian taxpayers are now paying more in interest payments on the national debt than they are for health care for all Canadians. That is the cost of running up the national credit card way past the max. As a matter of fact, put a different way, every penny that is collected from the GST, in every transaction across Canada, is now being sent to wealthy bankers and bondholders for the interest on the Prime Minister's destructive debt. The devastating news that is found in the budget document is that the Prime Minister now intends to add $300 billion more in binge borrowing. The Prime Minister said that under his leadership, the wealthy are getting richer, while regular Canadians are getting left behind. He is right. However, the Prime Minister's buddies who are the bankers and bondholders are not the only ones getting rich under his leadership. The Liberals have opened the floodgates of the public treasury to the consultant buddies as well. The government is now handing over $21 billion, every year, of borrowed money to these guys for projects—

1265 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/24 5:30:04 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will have one minute for debate the next time this matter is before the House, plus his questions and comments.

23 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

May/8/24 5:31:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-223

moved that Bill C-223, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support Bill C-223, an act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. This bill, in fact, addresses many of the critical issues that we are facing today, and I hope my colleagues will join the NDP in voting in favour of this bill and sending it to committee for consideration. Before I go on, I would like to remind all of my colleagues in the House, across party lines, that every single party has committed to implementing all 231 calls for justice at the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. One of the key calls for justice that is being advocated to end the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls is call for justice 4.5 to put in place a guaranteed income for indigenous peoples and for all other Canadians. My bill is merely heeding that call, particularly in support of ending gender-based violence for all people, including indigenous women. This bill is essential because we know that Canada's current social safety net has become totally inadequate. I will give a couple of examples. The guaranteed income supplement for seniors is an income guarantee that is not livable. As we hear disability advocates lobby government across the country with the new disability benefit, once again, what is required to live in dignity is not being provided. We have income guarantees in this country. My bill is actually not offering up a new idea. What my bill would do, however, along with over 100,000 advocates across the country, is urge elected officials to ensure that everybody in Canada has what they need to live in dignity, and that is not happening. According to a recent study by Statistics Canada, one in 10 people lives in poverty in Canada as of last year. We have also seen a disturbing rise in child poverty in recent years. Some of the poorest children in this country, in an urban centre, live in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, and even though we have been talking about how to lift people up in Canada, nobody has put anything on the table that achieves it beyond cheap political sound bites. Ed Broadbent, in 1989, passed a motion to end child poverty by the year 2000. However, here we are with piecemeal approaches to deal with poverty that contributes directly to a gender-based violence crisis that has been noted in some urban centres as an epidemic. We talk about families struggling to buy food. In 1989, Ed Broadbent called for the eradication of poverty in the year 2000. We are now in the year 2024 and inequality is increasing, as we see a growing disparity between the ultrarich and those who are barely making ends meet, if they are. We are seeing a rise, for the first time, in people becoming unhoused. Families are rolling onto the streets. Why? It is not that we do not have a solution that has been studied, as I will speak to, but it is that members of Parliament have not joined in unity and political will to uphold human rights in this country, to uphold our Canadian Charter of Rights and to ensure that nobody has to live in poverty. Poverty is something I have called one of the most violent human rights violations. If we want to talk about a mental health crisis in this country, we have one. I can tell members that when we do not provide people with their basic human rights, such as housing, as my colleague from Nunavut brought up today, access to clean drinking water, food security or the ability to know that the next day one would be able to survive, that is bad for one's mental health. It is guised in the House, as I hear lately, as this visceral, cruel rhetoric around people struggling, particularly those with addictions, and around poor-bashing, bashing people who are already down instead of talking about comprehensive solutions to lift people up. It is for these reasons, for the things that I see every day on the streets of Winnipeg Centre and around the country, for the wonderful people who surround me, for the human beings living in encampments and are my constituents, whom I visit, have relationships with and have respect for, I put forward this bill. If we are going to complain about people living in encampments and about people struggling with mental health, if we are going to talk about issues around ending gender-based violence, I do not want to hear about it in this place anymore, unless people are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that people can live in dignity. In the case of violence, should people choose to leave, they should have the financial resources to do so. They should have a guaranteed livable basic income in addition to other programs and supports meant to meet specific and special needs as my bill stipulates, such as affordable housing with rent geared to income and extra benefits for persons with disabilities so that they have what they need to pay for extra costs, for medications and for things to help them physically should they need them. I am offering us an opportunity to do the right thing and lift people out of poverty, including the number of children in care in my riding. They age out of care and, at age 18, get dropped off at the Salvation Army without any income or housing, and we wonder why things are the way they are today. Then I have to listen to Conservatives, even though as a teacher, I know that families and children have been struggling with hunger longer than the last 10 years. I know that families have had housing insecurity, longer than the last 10 years, that has been made worse by Conservative and by Liberal governments that have failed to invest in affordable social housing with rent geared to income and that have failed to provide people with income guarantees that allow them to live in dignity. We can do better. That is why I put forward this bill. For anybody over the age of 17, including students, refugee claimants, temporary foreign migrant workers, kids who would age out of care into income insecurity and without housing, and any seniors in my riding who are currently on the verge of being houseless, it would provide them what they need, especially for women. Many seniors who worked in the unpaid care economy and who do not have pensions cannot live off what they get from the guaranteed income supplement. Is this how we want seniors to live in this country? Is this how we want children to live in this country? Is this how we want the disability community to live in this country? We turn a blind eye to human rights violations, turn a blind eye to gender-based violence and turn a blind eye to ageism, targeting primarily women. We do not have to. A lot of people say this is going to cost a lot of money, so why implement a guaranteed livable basic income? We have inflation right now. It is out of control. Let us talk about the high cost of poverty. I want to talk about, specifically, the Dauphin study in Manitoba that an NDP government put forward in the 1980s. What they found was that folks who participated in the program had higher rates of graduation and their mental health improved. In fact, although there were a lot of myths, which have not ever been proven by research, that people stopped working, what they found was that they saved in health care costs. What they found was they saved costs by not having to provide what was needed to support good mental health, which includes ensuring that people have what they need to live in dignity. In research, a lot of the myths around guaranteed incomes do not add up. In fact, the Government of Ontario, in 2017, launched a basic income pilot that provided 4,000 low-income people with cash transfers to help with their cost of living. Observers found that work placements and community involvement actually increased, not decreased. School retention improved. Health outcomes, especially mental health, were more positive, as reported by program recipients, affirming the findings from the study in Dauphin in the 1980s. It is not like Canada would be the first. In fact, there are countries around the world that have implemented a guaranteed livable basic income, where people feel the happiest, and, in fact, those countries have growing economies. I do not want to hear in the House about the cost of living. I am tired of hearing poor bashing and bashing people with addictions in the most grotesque, pathologizing and stereotyping terms. I am so tired of governments talking about lifting people up when we have something before us that is a good economic policy and, in fact, is a cost saver. If we do not have the political will to implement a guaranteed livable basic income, I question our commitment as parliamentarians to eradicating poverty in this country. I question our commitment as parliamentarians to doing what pretty much every single women's organization that deals with violence has stated very clearly, and I say “pretty much” because I have not talked to every one. We need a guaranteed livable basic income now. It is through that, through respecting our charter and through respecting human rights, we will build a better country for all.

1647 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/8/24 5:45:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware, but I was actually elected to the Manitoba legislature back in 1988 and had the opportunity to experience both a provincial Conservative government as well as a provincial NDP government. I was very much aware of the fact that this experiment had taken place in Dauphin. Many were surprised that neither administration, whether the NDP for now 20-plus years or the Conservatives for 15-plus years, had taken the initiative any further or had had that discussion or debate, at least while I was there, in any real way that led to a resolution or a recommendation to Ottawa. I wonder if the member could maybe expand upon what she believes Manitoba's actual position is with respect to that, because I was never really clear on that.

140 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

May/8/24 5:46:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record, because that is not factual. The fact is that the NDP government was in power and it was then taken over by the Conservative Party, which cancelled the program. It is not that the Manitoba government did not want it go forward at the time. Unfortunately, it was stopped by a Conservative government. I would like to remind the member that it is an NDP member, with the support of the federal NDP caucus, who has actually been pushing this forward, including my bill for a guaranteed livable basic income. It is a little rich to say we are not moving on it when I am standing today, with the support of my whole caucus, supporting a guaranteed livable basic income.

130 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

May/8/24 5:47:37 p.m.
Watch

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

62 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

May/8/24 5:48:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to frame it a little. I certainly agree that the ultrarich are not paying their fair share in this country, and I would point to things like tax havens and tax loopholes for the ultrarich. In this discussion, we often forget about those who do not work. People with complex mental health and addiction issues might be able to work two days a week, not five. There are many people who cannot work. The problem and why we see so much growing inequality in this country is that we make a person's value and human rights about whether they are able to work or not. For seniors, are we going to tell grandma she needs to get back to work? For a person suffering with mental health issues, are we going to tell them to get back to work, that they need to work five days a week and if they do not they are going to end up on the streets? Do I think we need to adjust our tax system so those making less pay less taxes? Absolutely. I hope the Conservatives eventually support that.

193 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

May/8/24 5:49:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the critiques that often come up for programs like this is that some will say that it is a Conservative ruse to actually take away social programs on the back end. The Conservative member did reference clawbacks, and oftentimes it is provincial Conservative premiers who claw back on good social assistance programs. Could the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, whom I thank for her work, perhaps dispel any myths about how this bill would harm social programs and talk about what safeguards we can have to ensure greedy premiers do not claw it back in order to have tax cuts for the ultrawealthy?

107 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 311