44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2024 02:00PM
- May/8/24 6:01:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I get into the heart of my speech, I want to address a couple of comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre, whom I greatly respect. I just want to make it clear that Conservatives are very open to working with the NDP and any other party that wants to go after tax loopholes and tax evaders.
I have heard the member for New Westminster—Burnaby talk a lot about the Panama papers. Just yesterday at the Standing Committee on Finance, I asked CRA officials about how many convictions there have been and how many dollars have been collected from the Panama papers. I believe the answer is still zero. I am very happy to work with the NDP to close those loopholes and go after the ultrarich tax avoiders.
I also want to thank the member for putting forward this private member's bill, not only for its substance but also because it tells those who are struggling right now that the NDP cares about the most vulnerable. Quite frankly, and from my heart, we heard from the member across the aisle that there seems to be an absence of recognition of the struggles Canadians are going through. I thank the NDP for acknowledging that.
I want to talk about the affordability crisis. I know my NDP friends will probably not be as happy about these remarks, but they will give the important context that surrounds all of where we are today.
Specifically, I want to talk a bit about productivity and where we are as an economy. Ultimately, it is the economy that will drive the wealth of the nation. If we have a strong, productive economy, we will be wealthier. We can certainly argue about how to divide that pie, and the NDP has contributed greatly throughout its existence and had meaningful discussions about how to split it, but it has to be stated unequivocally that growing the pie is a good thing. Quite frankly, we have not seen that pie growing.
Over the last decade, we have seen almost zero GDP per capita growth. What that means is that we are facing a loss decade here in Canada. Our GDP per capita has grown by 4.73%, which is the actual number. We can contrast that to the United States, which is nearly 50%. Their economy has been growing 10 times as fast as ours over the last 10 years.
Strong productivity will lead to higher wages. As I said, we can certainly have discussions with the NDP about making sure we have a framework in place for things such as competition, which the NDP has been outspoken on and we agree upon, as well as other frameworks to make sure that pie is divided equally. However, we also have to talk about increasing that pie. If the pie shrinks, the reality is that the most vulnerable will suffer the most. Experts and economists say this.
Carolyn Rogers, who is the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, in a now famous speech on productivity, recently talked about the “time to break the glass” and the corrosive impact of a lack of productivity. It hurts inflation. An economy that can produce more goods and services, simply by virtue of that, reduces the cost of everything. We can think of this as the basic rules of supply and demand. If, in fact, an economy produces more goods, the costs of those goods go down, and the effect of inflation is decreased.
Carolyn Rogers went on to say that the level of productivity in Canada's business sector is more or less unchanged from seven years ago, as I talked about. She stated:
Back in 1984, the Canadian economy was producing 88% of the value generated by the US economy per hour. That’s not great. But by 2022, Canadian productivity had fallen to just 71% of that of the United States. Over this same period of time, Canada also fell behind our G7 peers, with only Italy seeing a larger decline in productivity relative to the United States.
Canada's productivity has fallen for the past 13 quarters. That is incredible. “Productivity” is fancy economist jargon but, really, all this word means is our ability to make goods and deliver services. Are we making goods more efficiently and more effectively?
Certainly, we can imagine those last 13 years. We have seen tremendous innovation, the rise of digitalization and even, now, the beginnings of artificial intelligence. However, our productivity in Canada has not increased.
A study published by the Fraser Institute found that, from 2014, business investment per worker declined by 20%. That is a bit of the story, too: We are not attracting or maintaining investment here in Canada.
I know what my NDP friend would say. I can say his name now, as he is not here: Daniel Blaikie. Mr. Blaikie would talk about the fact that the lack of competition was driving the lack of corporate spending. I do not disagree entirely with that thesis. In fact, I think that is an area where the NDP and the Conservatives could actually work together.
What we cannot do is bring uncertainty into the markets. We cannot overly restrict or unduly regulate businesses either. If we shrink their resources, we will shrink their ability to invest in our workers.
Canadian workers are the best in the world. They work as hard as, if not harder than, anyone else. The reason their productivity is not increasing is that businesses are not investing in their equipment and their machinery.
One can imagine productivity in Canada being like this: We have workers with shovels, but the Americans have workers with backhoes. As hard as our workers work, they will never be able to compete until we make the proper investments going forward.
Over the past five years, productivity in the business sector has fallen 0.3%, while it has grown by 1.7% in the U.S. That is our problem.
Longer term, the OECD projects Canada to rank dead last among the OECD members in real GDP growth out to 2060. Canada's 10-year average in GDP per capita is at its lowest level since the Great Depression. Cumulative growth has been about 2% in Canada versus 12% in the United States.
A lack of productivity has very real consequences. Unfortunately, across the aisle, we hear the same solutions over and over again: more taxing and more spending. Every time I hear this rhetoric, I always have, in my head, the great line from Winston Churchill: “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
The Liberals seem hell-bent on taxing prosperity, productivity and investment and making anyone with a dream of succeeding in this country feel as though what they want is bad. However, we need prosperity, achievers and success.
Certainly, as I said at the start of my speech, we need to make sure that all Canadians pay their fair share. Conservatives have been clear and unequivocal on that point. However, we also need to recognize those exceptional individuals who start from nothing, pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, make a success of it and create jobs, wealth and prosperity, not just for themselves but for our communities.
In conclusion, once again, I would like to thank the member for recognizing the terrible challenges that many Canadians are facing across this great country. What we really need in Canada is to bring back prosperity to this land through greater investments by our businesses, through an entrepreneurial spirit, through renewal, through rewarding success and through looking forward, with optimism, to future prosperity.
1310 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill. I want to commend my NDP colleague for initiating this debate on a guaranteed livable basic income.
We need to know how to recognize the social issues in our society, such as guaranteeing everyone enough income to live. In Quebec, there are studies that talk about a livable income, which is more than a minimum income. This type of income is supported by Quebec's Institut de recherche et d'informations socioéconomiques. That, too, is an interesting concept. No matter what region a person lives in, they need more than just a basic income. That is where the concept of livable income comes from. We addressed this issue during the study of Bill C‑319, which pertains to seniors.
All that to say, I do not believe that prosperity alone will bring about equality or equity. It takes robust social measures to ensure income equality in our societies.
As many know, no matter what it is called, be it guaranteed minimum income or universal allowance, this idea is not just being championed by the left. The right has also has also used it in its own way, saying we should dismantle social programs and give everyone a basic income. That, too, is a vision.
In Quebec, similar discussions have taken place regularly, particularly since the 1960s, when labour activists promoted them. Then the pandemic hit and nine million jobs suddenly vanished, laying bare just how fragile the system is. EI used to be a social safety net, but sadly, it no longer plays that role. During that time, we saw just how many people fell through the cracks.
These debates are ongoing in Quebec, in the other Canadians provinces and internationally. In Quebec, as I said, we have been having this debate since the 1960s.
Sorry about the noisy papers.
315 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:14:35 p.m.
- Watch
I must interrupt the hon. member.
The rustling of papers on the hon. member's desk is bothering the interpreters. I must advise her of this because it is quite loud. If she could try to avoid making such loud noises, that would be wonderful.
The hon. member has the floor.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:14:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is very important and you did the right thing. We have to protect our interpreters, who perform such essential work in the House.
There is one problem with my colleague's proposal: Social safety nets and social programs are not Ottawa's responsibility. They fall under provincial jurisdiction. One basic principle of a guaranteed minimum income is that it would replace other social programs, thereby preventing vulnerable people from falling through the cracks, which we do not want.
What social programs would basic income replace? Considering that all the social programs are in Quebec, and that our social programs are strong, I do not think that we are debating this issue in the right place. In Quebec, for example, we have other social safety net programs apart from EI. EI comes under federal jurisdiction because Quebec constitutionally agreed to give it up. I think that was a mistake. It should be repatriated, but how we repatriate programs under the Constitution is another matter.
Most of the programs are Quebec initiatives. I am talking about the social solidarity program, the occupational health and safety program, the Quebec pension plan, the child benefit and the disability benefit. Since 2023, in addition to the social solidarity program, Quebec has had a basic income program to help people who have severe employment restrictions. It may not be a livable income, but it is a very important social safety net program.
I am going to talk about our universal early childhood education services program in Quebec. It is a social safety net program for everyone. For families or parents who have social solidarity income, there is no contribution. From an equity perspective, we want to ensure that we have a significant social solidarity safety net and major social programs. In Quebec, we have shown that social programs help support the most vulnerable, those we need to help.
All this to say that these social programs belong to Quebec. It is constitutional. Adding a guaranteed livable minimum income at the federal level is like saying that Quebec's social programs are being transferred to Canada. That is a no. That would be against the Constitution and I do not think it would be beneficial. Let me explain.
One of the programs that is part of Canada's social safety net is employment insurance, although that is no longer a true social safety net. It has become an insurance plan that six out of 10 workers cannot access, despite having paid into it, and one that self-employed workers cannot access. In addition, people who work in atypical jobs, primarily young people and women, cannot access it because of its strict criteria. When it was first introduced, it was meant to be a social safety net against the worst thing that can happen, that is, losing a job. I think we need to strengthen the social safety net and its programs.
We talked about the guaranteed income supplement. The GIS is the social assistance component of old age security. The federal government ranks poorly among OECD countries when it comes to support for seniors, and to compensate for the low incomes of some OAS recipients, they receive the GIS. Ideally, the government should not need to provide the GIS. Instead, it should guarantee seniors a universal OAS benefit starting at age 65 that would bolster their incomes and raise their standard of living. However, these are not the choices the government has made, nor are they matters of federal jurisdiction.
Other social safety nets such as health and education are also the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Back in the day, the federal government, which has the spending power, signed a health pact with Saskatchewan, Quebec and all the provinces. The provinces had passed health legislation guaranteeing free universal medical and hospital care. Under the pact, the federal government was to fund 50% of the costs of the health care system. We are a long way away from that. We have gotten further away over time. These days, the government covers barely 25% of these costs.
Are we going to trust the federal government to manage the social safety net programs that Quebec has adopted? The answer is no. It is clear from the examples I gave that, on the contrary, the government is making people poorer. That is what is happening with the new disability benefit. When the budget was tabled, we were shocked to see that the intended objective would not be—
752 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:21:59 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired. In fact, I gave her an extra 30 seconds.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:22:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are few opportunities to rise in the House that give me the type of honour that has been bestowed upon me to speak alongside my incredible colleague and seatmate, the member for Winnipeg Centre, on this particular issue this evening. There are few topics I could speak to that connect more with the material conditions for people in Hamilton Centre.
New Democrats come to our politics honestly. We come to them by viewing, watching and observing, and many times experiencing, the struggles, the poverty and the abject conditions that people face, the legislated poverty. Watching people suffer in my city has radicalized me over the years because there is, for some reason, a notion that it has always been done this way. There is no alternative. It always has to be this way. We have to be in this zero-sum economy of winners and losers, and the concentration of wealth and prosperity in this country always has to be distributed to the top.
We can look at what is before us in the bill for a guaranteed basic livable income. We heard something from even the Conservative members who spoke on the bill. They admit that there is an opportunity to put this bill to second reading, and to begin to have a discussion about how we can lift people truly out of poverty and raise the material conditions for people. This is not a new topic. I will share with members that in Hamilton, much like the material conditions that exist for people in Winnipeg Centre, people continue to struggle. Often we are the canaries in the coal mine. When city centres like Toronto catch a cold, we suffer the most.
I will share with members something that goes back to 2009. We first started the social assistance review, and I was in rooms with people such as Tom Cooper from the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction. It was led by people with lived experience and included the campaign for adequate welfare and disability, and people like Elizabeth McGuire, and Margie and Dan Gould, folks who were legislated to live in poverty.
In talking about that, let us put things into perspective for a moment. Forget about the ultrawealthy. We can barely conceive, in this country, what a billion dollars is. However, there is something that people who are watching tonight can understand, and it is clear. Currently, in this province, Ontario Works is $733 a month. That is $733 a month to live in this economy.
When we talk about the cost of living, what we are talking about is the crisis of capitalism, runaway profits and the inability for people to meet their basic needs. We are talking about the crumbling of the mythology of a liberal economy where people should be able to work hard, go to school, get good jobs and take care of their families. That is no more.
Quite rightly, my compassionate colleague refocused us with the understanding that people's worth and value ought not be tied to their employment, their productivity and our GDP. Humans have an inherent worth, regardless of how they are utilized within a capitalist economy.
I will share that people who are living right now on ODSP, sentenced to live in poverty, are receiving $1,300 a month. How can anybody, anywhere, with a straight face, say that that is enough for people to survive? The Liberal government has the audacity to suggest that an additional $200 a month would cover it.
There are a lot of people who think that this is the only way that things can be done and there is no alternative. The member for Winnipeg Centre brought up the example of Dauphin. Right in Hamilton, not too long ago, there was a provincial Liberal government that put in a basic income. That is not to be confused with the guaranteed livable income. The basic income project was, in fact, legislated poverty because it still sentenced people to live below the low-income cut off.
I find it abhorrent that the Liberal member for Winnipeg North stood up and completely dismissed this, when 80% of the Liberals' membership, in their last policy convention, stood for this. The Liberals continue to pay lip service to lifting people out of poverty, while standing up and having the audacity to dismiss a real discussion about this at second reading. I say shame to the member.
Let us talk about the Hamilton basic income pilot project that was brought up. I want people to take a moment to humanize the issue. There was some incredible work done by Jessie Golem, who put together the “Humans of Basic Income” photography series. She profiled people like my friend Tim Button, as well as my dearly missed comrade Michael Hampson, a disability justice advocate who spoke to this pilot project in Hamilton. It was a project that granted people a meagre $17,000 a year, which is still well below the low-income cut-off. About that little lift up, he said, “It changed my life. Gave me back my dignity and faith in my community. ODSP chained me in poverty, causing high stress and poor nutritional opportunities.” He said that basic income gave healing to the recipients.
This was a man we sorely lost during COVID. Today, I rise to honour him and to lift up his voice. I rise to lift up all the voices of the Hamiltonians who, for a brief moment, were given a bit of life and dignity. By having this support, people could then pursue the education options they wanted, have the opportunity to transition into jobs and, yes, flee gender-based violence. That is what we are talking about in this moment. That is why this bill is so important.
For anybody who would not have the courage to at least allow this to go to second reading and have the discussion, I want them to think about those humans of basic income. I want them to think about and look at the encampments they have in their communities. We talk about the runaway crisis of capitalism, the way the profiteering is happening and the corporate concentration of wealth. There is prosperity in this country.
Right now it is not a supply issue with housing. We have condos dotting the skies, cranes going up every day, and year after year a record number of building permits. We also have record numbers of people sentenced to live in tents in this country. In this country, New Democrats believe that everybody has the right to dignity, safety, housing, food, the necessities of life, education and opportunity.
The audacity of the liberalism that speaks about the middle-class and those working hard to join them, as though what they lie about is that the most hard-working people in this country are the ones sentenced to live in low-income, in subsistence and in deep poverty, is what we are here to change today.
Madam Speaker, before I conclude, I am going to go ahead and beat my Liberal colleagues to the punch. I withdraw the term “lie”.
1202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:30:26 p.m.
- Watch
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
There is one motion and amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-59. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:31:26 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting the short title.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:31:30 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:31:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I understand it, what the Conservatives are doing is having a debate about the deleting of the short title of the bill.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:31:49 p.m.
- Watch
That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. member can raise that during questions and comments.
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has the floor.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:32:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise and represent the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot in the House of Commons.
Today, I do so to enter into debate on what is, ironically, the fall fiscal update. Many people watching must be wondering why we are debating, come springtime, a bill that was tabled in the fall. I had that same question, but it simply comes down to this. While the Liberals tabled their budget a couple of weeks ago, which I will talk about here in a moment, we are still debating the fall economic statement in the spring.
That is a clear example of the utter incompetence that we have seen from the Liberal Party. The Liberals cannot manage their legislative agenda, and they certainly cannot manage the economy. We are seeing debt spiralling out of control. We are seeing pain and suffering in people's lives. We are seeing pain and suffering in the lives of so many Canadians. That is a perfect example.
The reason I wanted to start my speech emphasizing that is that, when folks watch this, they will look on the screen to see that it has “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023” written across it. Earlier today we were also debating the budget implementation act, 2024, highlighting the true incompetence and inability of the Prime Minister, the Liberals and their coalition partners who prop them up. Come storm or sunny day, their coalition partners are always there to stand with the Liberals, propping up their corruption, their incompetence and, ultimately, the pain that Canadians are feeling from coast to coast. When it comes to the true root of what I hear as I travel across my constituency, related to both the fall economic statement and the budget that was tabled here a couple of weeks ago, there is crime and chaos in our streets and gravel roads.
It is interesting. I am sure many MPs and, hopefully, some Liberal and NDP members as well, keep something similar to what I affectionately refer to as my “call list”. It can take some time to get through that call list, as there are a whole host of people who want to speak to me out of the 110,000 or so people I represent. I find it incredibly important to speak with individuals who are—
400 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:34:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am questioning the relevance of the member's speech to the motion that was put forward to delete the short title of the act. I am having a hard time trying to connect it to—
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:35:06 p.m.
- Watch
Obviously, the hon. member recognizes that there is some leeway during speeches. However, I do want to remind members to make sure that they are speaking to the bill that is before the House. Their speeches should be in reference to that.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:35:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it so interesting that, in the middle of my speaking about talking with my constituents, the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill would suggest that somehow the pain that Canadians are experiencing is not relevant to the discussion in this place. It is that ignorance, that being so utterly out of touch, that makes it almost difficult to find words. That is why I would suggest that she take notes when it comes to what I am describing about the need to speak to our constituents.
The very basis of why this place exists is that we are the representatives of the people, rather than elites imposing their vision upon a populace who do not have a say. Those are days gone by. While that may be the pursuit of that member and so many members of the Liberal Party, that is an absolutely unacceptable attitude to have in the House of Commons, a place where the common people should have a voice.
I would suggest—
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:36:57 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I want to remind the hon. member that his comments were almost speaking to the member herself. I want to remind members that they can debate government policies and about the party itself, but they should not attack individual members. Therefore, I want to caution the hon. member on some of the comments he made because they were attacking the individual member. I am assuming that is why the hon. member was also rising on a point of order at the same time as I was.
I would caution members to make sure they speak to the bill, which is pretty wide, as I just did another check on that. I also want to remind the member that it should not be an attack on individuals themselves, but that it should be on either the government's policies or the government's actions.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:38:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that the member did attack me. It was just not veering in that direction. He made comments about my person and assumptions about what my motivation was. Therefore, I would ask the Speaker to ask him to retract those statements about me.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:38:18 p.m.
- Watch
I ask the hon. member to retract his statements.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:38:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on that same point of order, my colleague was simply pointing out the government's disdain for the general public. This was not—
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
