SoVote

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/24 6:30:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

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

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/8/24 6:31:26 p.m.
Watch

moved: That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting the short title.

12 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/24 6:31:30 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point order.

14 words

Mr. Peter Julian

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

Mr. Damien Kurek

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

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

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

Speech
Rise

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

Mr. Damien Kurek

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

Caution

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

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

Attack

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/24 6:38:18 p.m.
Watch

I ask the hon. member to retract his statements.

9 words

Retract
Ask

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/24 6:38:41 p.m.
Watch

I will indicate to the hon. member that I heard the comments; there were two of them, so I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw those comments so that he can continue on with his speech.

38 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

May/8/24 6:39:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would request some clarity. I heard the comments, as I was listening very closely. The member did comment on the knowledge of the individual and did use the word “ignorance”, which is not unparliamentary. I think you will find that Hansard is littered with the word, but I did not hear a word that was unparliamentary, so I would ask—

73 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/24 6:39:24 p.m.
Watch

I did catch it the first time. However, I thought the hon. member was changing course, but there was a second time as well. Therefore, I am asking the hon. member to withdraw his comments so that he can go on with his speech.

44 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/8/24 6:39:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comments that have caused so much offence in this place.

15 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/24 6:39:45 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot can continue with his speech.

13 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 311