SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 339 - Sep/19/24

Sep/19/24 5:12:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate how the member opposite noted that the previous federal government did not do anything on this. In my speech, I outlined several improvements that have already been made to help improve the culture at CAF and DND. This is not the first step we have taken. This is not the only thing we have done. It has taken some time. We heard from Louise Arbour that it was going to take time to implement some of these recommendations, but we are working on it. We are moving. We are action-focused.

95 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Sep/19/24 5:13:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very much in favour of giving sexual misconduct victims in the military the possibility of being heard in our civilian justice system. However, I hear that some victims are asking to have the option of choosing between the civilian justice system and the military justice system. I am a bit surprised, to be honest. What does my colleague think of the possibility of letting the victims choose?

71 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner

Sep/19/24 5:14:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who works with me at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Yes, I think that it is very important for victims to have choices. I also find this situation to be surprising. I am not sure, I am not a legal expert, but I think that we should have a system for everyone and that everyone should use it.

75 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Sep/19/24 5:14:48 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, the more I learn about this bill, the more I see how important survivors of violence in the military are. I am sure that it is already very traumatizing to have to serve in the military, especially in today's society, globally, with all the violence that we are seeing. In particular, with survivors of abuse within the system itself, it makes me quite concerned that there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. For example, we have been told that law enforcement in different provinces might not be equipped to deal with investigations or those kinds of things. I wonder if the member agrees that once this gets to committee, expanding the committee to study this bill specifically with a focus on survivors will be so important that that extension is going to be necessary.

141 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner

Sep/19/24 5:16:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very smart question. Absolutely, the focus should be getting this study to committee as soon as possible so that it can become legislation as soon as possible. I am a little concerned about any delays that may happen. I do not want to see any overextension. I want to see a committee look at this study, make any improvements that are possible and necessary, and get it passed in this House of Commons as soon as possible.

82 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Sep/19/24 5:16:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-66

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House. I am going to split my time with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington. I support Bill C-66. I support the principle of the bill. This is a legislative change that is needed to implement a recommendation that was made to the previous government in March 2015, which was only a few months before the House rose in 2015. The present government was elected in the election that followed. This government came into office with the Deschamps report freshly in hand, and did absolutely nothing to make this legislative change happen until this year. Last March, six months ago, the Liberals tabled the bill before us, and here we are this week, finally attempting to make the legislative change needed to implement this important recommendation. The approach on this legislative change for moving the investigation and prosecution of sexual misconduct from military justice to civilian justice is exactly the same approach as everything else that this government does when it comes to the Canadian Armed Forces. Just like everything else, we see delay in the implementation. We have, right now, ships resting out at sea. We also have fighter jets that have still not been delivered, which is another thing that, nine years ago, the Liberals could have made a decision on. We would have the fighter jets by now, but after years and years of delay, we do not have them. We are lucky to have one submarine in the water for maybe a few dozen days of the year. The submarines we have were cast-offs from the British navy from decades ago. This government has been in power for nine years and has done nothing to procure new submarines. Yes, the government has the word “submarines” in its defence policy update, but that is not the same as actually taking concrete actions to procure and build submarines, and have submarines delivered. We also had testimony at the defence committee about the incredibly small number of tanks that are available, even for training, never mind deployment. On offshore patrol aircraft, the government recently, finally, signed a contract to replace the 40-year-old aircraft that are very close to the end of their operational lives. Also, we do not possess air defence systems. The previous minister of defence did announce, and accepted extraordinary credit for promising, an air defence system to be sent to Ukraine almost two years ago now. It was actually announced to a television audience that it was en route to Ukraine. However, we subsequently learned that not only was it not en route to Ukraine, but there was not even a contract signed to procure it. In fact, it has not even been produced. This is, again, the culture of delay and neglect of this government. We hear at defence committee that information technology lacking. As well, base housing is in deplorable condition with houses falling apart and a 7,000-unit backlog for people wanting to access base housing. The barracks are in horrific, unsanitary conditions. Health care is also lacking for military families. New transport and refuelling aircraft are beginning to be procured without a hangar to place them or even a commitment for where they will be based. Howitzers and artillery pieces are entirely lacking, as well as shells. This government let a production line mothball in the threat environment that was emerging, and now Canada and its allies desperately need artillery shells. We do not have the production. The Liberals have, for a year and a half, been dithering without firm contracts to industry or being able to send a firm enough signal to industry for industry to make the investments necessary to get our production lines up and running for artillery shells, and 2,500 a month is nothing. It is less than the Ukrainian army would fire before lunchtime on a given day, if they had the equipment ready. That is the nature of contemporary threats that we have. Artillery matters. If the present conflicts in the world have taught us anything, it is that these equipment pieces and their ammunition supplies are critical. With respect to training, 10,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not have adequate training to be deployed. These men and women want to be trained. They want to be up to deployable levels. They want to do missions. Ten thousand members are under-trained and there are 16,000 vacancies. Even the defence committee chair, earlier in this debate, talked about the inability of the Canadian Armed Forces to adequately take in people. Thousands of people are applying to join the forces, and it does not have the capacity to take people in. There are 16,000 vacant positions in the Canadian Armed Forces. This bill is addressing the well-known and well-documented problem with sexual misconduct in the military, which is a factor in recruitment and retention and certainly a factor in morale. I travelled this past summer to Latvia with the defence committee, where I met some of our troops who are deployed on a critically important mission. These people are the best. I met a 19-year-old private who has more responsibility than I can imagine any young person being given. This very young man was responsible for training and for helping allied soldiers improve and get up to the best of their ability to execute their roles in Latvia. He is a 19-year-old man from northern British Columbia. I met a young lieutenant. She was a platoon commander there. Again, she was a very young woman with extraordinary responsibility for the defence of allied territory. These people are the best and they deserve protection. They deserve access to justice when sexual misconduct happens. We have talked a lot about culture and culture change in the military. Part of the culture change that needs to happen is overcoming the culture of secrecy, the culture of cover-up. That culture has permeated to the very top levels. We saw the former minister of defence covering up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff. We have seen this type of behaviour at the highest levels. We have heard testimony at the defence committee from victims of sexual assault who say that they cannot access justice; not just because of the issue around the lack of access to civilian systems, which this bill would ultimately change, but the inability to get information that they need to file a complaint. The reflexive secrecy around even members of the Canadian Armed Forces accessing their own information is a big part of the problem, and this bill would not fix that, so there is a long way to go in ensuring justice for members of the Canadian Armed Force who are victims of sexual misconduct. As has been pointed out in this debate as well, it is not like civilian access to justice for sexual assault victims is assured, and far from it. We have seen under the current government an erosion of effective law enforcement and justice for victims. We see crime levels that we have not seen in decades. We have seen an acceleration of crime. We have seen a lack of urgency in appointing judges so that assault victims can access justice and this bill would not change that. Yes, this bill is important. Yes, it should go to committee. However, it should not skip any of the legislative steps. We need a robust committee study on this. We need to make sure we get it right, that all the victims are heard from and the details of this bill are correct.

1296 words

Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Sep/19/24 5:27:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite, in his speech, acknowledging the importance of the bill and his indication that he intends to support it. We wholeheartedly agree. We think this bill is important. Let us get it to committee. Let us get on with the work that needs to be done. I heard a long litigation of all his previous grievances with respect to the government, but he indicated his personal support for members of the military. How would he reconcile that with the fact that, when a vote came before the House to provide money to give members of the Canadian Armed Forces a pay raise, he voted against it? Deeds speak, and your words are betrayed by your actions. How would you reconcile that?

127 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/19/24 5:27:54 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. minister that he needs to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member. The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

31 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Sep/19/24 5:28:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I voted against confidence in the government. When the estimates were presented, Conservatives voted every chance we had to bring down the government. The estimates he speaks of, which we voted against, contained a cut to the military budget. I will not take any lessons from him on who supports the military. The government has failed the military every step of the way and continues to do so, notwithstanding this bill.

73 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Sep/19/24 5:28:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-66

Madam Speaker, my colleague rambled a bit at times, but he kept coming back to the subject at hand, which is Bill C-66. That is better than nothing. I would like to draw his attention to one aspect. I understand that the Conservatives are prepared to support the bill so that it can at least go to committee. That is more or less our position as well. We will take a closer look and see how we can work together to improve it. In the current version of the act, subsection 18.5(4) states that, “[t]he Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines...are available to the public.” Apparently, that is no longer included in this bill. Does my colleague agree that this opens the door to potential abuses?

135 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Sep/19/24 5:29:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member brought up a good point. This is why we have legislative processes. This is why the bill needs a thorough study at committee. While the passage of this bill is urgent, given the length of time the government has caused delay in creating this legislative change, it still cannot be rushed. It has to be done right so we make sure the bill best serves victims and the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

78 words

Rushed

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Sep/19/24 5:29:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is an important bill, and we have seen for far too long the reality of women serving our country who are being put in positions that are incredibly unjust, in a system that really continues to press silence upon them. I hear what the member is saying about his concerns, about how long it has taken. I share those concerns. It would have been nice to see a lot of things happen a lot faster. In this process, when this bill gets to committee, will it be a priority of the Conservatives to get this done as quickly as possible, knowing that it has to be done well, so we can see people in the service fully protected in a new and important way?

127 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Sep/19/24 5:30:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am actually no longer a member of the defence committee, but my colleagues who remain there always prioritize important work to ensure the best for our troops, and they will take that approach. They will ensure this bill is examined correctly, and identify if there are any issues and if amendments are required. We had an intervention a moment ago about some of the details of this bill. I fully expect my Conservative colleagues on that committee will do their jobs, do the jobs they were elected to do, and ensure this bill is done right and returned as expeditiously as it can be, while not neglecting their duty to examine the legislation.

116 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

Sep/19/24 5:31:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-66

Madam Speaker, in my previous role, I had the great privilege of sitting on the national defence committee, and I dealt with a great many issues related to our Canadian Armed Forces, from housing to procurement, access to medical care and supports, recruitment retention and closing the commitment capability gap. I was honoured to get a near first-hand account of many of the issues the DND and the CAF were facing every single day. While these are all incredibly important issues, they desperately need the immediate and full attention of the government. There was one in particular that stuck with me, an issue that my colleague on the status of women committee has seen and studied far too often: violence against women. In this session alone, the committee has studied violence against indigenous women in the context of resource development and inter-partner violence, and we are currently in the middle of a study on coercive behaviour. In fact, in the last Parliament, I studied the very issue that led to today's legislation, which is sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Having sat on these two committees at length, so far the intersection of national defence and violence against women is an issue that I, along with my colleagues, am acutely aware of and uniquely positioned to speak to. Sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces is particularly close to my heart, as I have the honour of representing the brave woman who first brought the issue into the public sphere 26 long years ago by appearing on the front cover of Maclean's magazine. Dawn McIlmoyle appeared with the words “Rape in the military” emblazoned on the front page beside her photo. I honestly believe that the discourse we are having at several committees at the highest level in the Canadian political process would not be happening today if it were not for individuals such as Dawn, as well as the litany of other survivors who have courageously chosen to come forward with their stories. To each and every single one of them, I am so sorry that their government has failed them time and time again, but now we thank them for bravely sharing their experiences with us. We as legislators need to hear it. We as legislators need to act on it. There is so much we need to do. While Bill C-66 is a start that I look forward to perhaps studying in that committee, if they will have me, it is a very limited start, and there is a Herculean amount of legislative and cultural changes in the CAF, particularly in leadership, that need to happen to properly address this crisis. On this last point, I want to make something very clear. It will take years to change this culture. I have had the pleasure of speaking with General Eyre on many occasions, as well as many other members of the CAF, from flag officers to privates, and I have received nothing but the utmost assurances that they are taking the issue very seriously. I have never doubted any of them for a second, but all of us sitting in this room are not fools. They are not going to allow a CAF member who could be a liability to the matter to speak to someone sitting on the national defence committee. This is why the entire public relations branch exists. I trust the new chief of the defence staff, General Carignan, will take this matter extremely seriously. It is up to us to ensure that she and her team, as well as the Department of National Defence, have the tools at their disposal to get the job done. I would like to highlight exactly what I mean when I say Bill C-66 is limited in scope. I think the best way to do this is to read into the record the testimony that someone far more knowledgeable on this matter than I had to say on April 17 of this year at the national defence committee. On that day, Patrick White, a witness who came forward to committee, shared his own sexual harassment story within the CAF as it related to access to information, a key point of contention in properly addressing misconduct in the armed forces. He spoke of the grievance process, the very method through which this entire process starts. It is massively flawed. One of his many salient points is as follows: The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That's the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don't. What annoys me more than anything is when senior members who have never been affected in the way some of us have flippantly say, “If you don't like it, grieve it,” knowing full well that they've never had to go through those processes, or maybe they did in a minor way and had success. Unfortunately, Bill C-66 would not amend the grievance section of the National Defence Act in any way, shape or form. It addresses a very specific element of a crisis that is caked in generations of institutional rot, flippant indifference and outright arrogance in the Canadian Armed Forces, National Defence and Parliament. In that same committee meeting was Gary Walbourne, a former national defence ombudsman. He actually had to go to war with the government, so to speak, to get the information he needed to do his job. He said this: We're talking about people who have been put in positions of authority. There are guidelines on what they're supposed to do. They're well written.... However, it is funny that the farther you get up the ladder, the thinner the air gets—I'm sure that's what happens—and the blood rushes to their heads or their egos. We have a system in place.... It's circumvented by people in the system. How do we change the culture? I'll go back to this again: We have to start rewarding proper behaviour and punishing bad behaviour. Why do we promote people when they do the wrong thing? Others come forward and offer themselves up, saying, “Listen, guys, this is what's going wrong. Can we get a little help here?” These people are turned on. You absolutely have a fundamental flaw here, but it's not with your policies. Your policies need updating, sure they do, and you need to adjust a few, add a few things to them and bring in a few more nuances and codicils there, but what we have to get at is the behaviour of the people currently sitting in the seats. Mr. Walbourne is extremely clear: We do not have a policy problem; we have a people problem. We cannot fix our policy problem if we do not fix the people problem. Any framework set up by any legislation will just fall victim to the same institutional cancer. Every single policy framework in DND and CAF related to justice for victims and survivors has fallen victim to it since women first entered our armed forces, and, quite frankly, this cancer festered for decades beforehand. Again, to quote committee witness Patrick White: If I could leave the committee with one final point to think about, it's that if you really want to get to culture change and solve these issues, you need to look at every single aspect of the system and understand how it feeds back in. That includes the honours and recognition system, the promotion system, the grievance system and the military police system—all of it—but with a central view of what the effect would be on these sorts of things that we get to. Correcting the colossal problem starts with us. It comes through our willingness to, first, actually address the change and, second, strengthen, entrench and enforce legislation and policy that holds public officials accountable, including people in the Canadian Armed Forces, public servants and us, as legislators. While Bill C-66 does address some very specific issues in the CAF, there is still no single 35-page bill that will solve a crisis that was 50 years in the making. Bill C-66 needs to be the first of a suite of legislation brought forward in this place to fix this crisis in the CAF, and it needs to continue past the Liberal government, whenever that may be, into the next, whatever it may be. It also needs continued support from all parties involved. Without that willingness to move forward, men, women and marginalized Canadians will continue to be victimized, not only in our armed forces but also in our public service and society at large. I would like to end by addressing the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, both current and former. To those who are victims, to those who are survivors, we have failed them. We know we have, but change is coming because of what they have told us. The vast majority of armed forces members recognize there is a problem, but they feel helpless because of a broken system that punishes speaking out or drawing attention to inappropriate behaviour. To them, I say to stay strong. I am not here to admonish them. Finally, to those who are a part of this problem, they are complicit. This goes for everyone from the new recruit right up to the flag officer, those who think they are entitled to another person's agency because “that is just how it goes here” and those who continuously look away because they believe the individual is a really good guy. If what I have said today upsets them, good. I want them to be upset. I want them to lie awake every night and worry that the system that has enabled and protected their behaviour for generations will collapse and expose them for what they are. They have no place in the Canadian Armed Forces, and they never have.

1736 words

Hon. Bill Blair

Sep/19/24 5:42:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-66

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, given that all members in the House have spoken in favour of the legislation before us, would there be unanimous consent to allow Bill C-66 to be sent to committee?

38 words

C-66, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/19/24 5:42:39 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: No.

7 words

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Sep/19/24 5:43:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in this House on behalf of those I represent in Winnipeg South Centre. I want to thank my colleague across the way, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is also a neighbour of mine. Our constituencies border each another. I know that the member for Winnipeg Centre comes to work every day with a genuine desire to advocate for those she serves. In many instances, those she serves are among the most impoverished in our city and our country. During my years as an educator, as a teacher and principal in particular, I learned a lot about the various things that are required for kids and their families to live a successful and healthy life. In particular, I recall a program in the Seven Oaks School Division, of which I was an employee for a number of years, located in the northwest part of the city of Winnipeg, that sought to give families and their kids a leg-up. At that time, we took some grant money that had been given to us through a partnership with the province and provided cash to those in need. Usually it was single mothers with kids at home living in some precarious situations by virtue of poverty, intergenerational trauma and other obstacles that daily life presents. We gave them cash on a monthly basis, and they invested it in the basic necessities of life, which included food, books, transportation and other things that would make life easier, healthier and more comfortable for them and their children. On that note, I want to say that I am extremely proud of the investments that the federal government is making in a national school food program. I understand that there are some significant conversations happening on that and progress is under way with my home province of Manitoba. A collaboration between our two levels of government is going to leverage existing funding to help make sure that kids in need in the province get the type of nutritious and healthy food they need to succeed. Going back to the program in my former school division, what we saw was that people were happier and healthier, and they had the boost and leg-up that they needed. In my home province of Manitoba, in the 1970s there was an experiment. It was in the city of Dauphin, in northern Manitoba. It was undertaken, constructed and implemented by a woman named Dr. Evelyn Forget, who I am very proud to say is a constituent of mine. I remember that during my by-election just last year, when I knocked on her door and we started talking about basic minimum income, she said that I ought to be thinking about it and gave me some ideas. I asked her if she knew that there was a project in Dauphin in the 1970s and she said, “Yes. I wrote it.” It was fascinating for me to have the opportunity to talk to a constituent with such a high degree of expertise and first-hand knowledge of this important issue. Since then, I have had some very interesting conversations with Dr. Forget and other members of my constituency, who have articulated their desire to see me support the piece of legislation put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. Interestingly, when I read about the program in Dauphin in the 1970s and looked at similar programs implemented as recently as a few months ago in the province of Ontario, I could see some very interesting stories emerging that painted a picture of the ways in which a form of basic minimum income could be of benefit to Canadians. If the bill is able to pass through this stage of debate to then lend itself to further discussion at committee, it is worthy of our support. It would be of merit for us to have a longer conversation about this legislation. In our parliamentary system, the committee stage, where we hear from witnesses and experts who give us guidance on whether it makes sense for us to move forward, is an appropriate place for this legislation to further explore the merits or disadvantages of a basic minimum income. When the time comes to vote on the legislation, I will be lending my support to it. I do have questions and concerns, particularly as they pertain to cost, fairness and distribution. However, as I noted a moment ago, I trust that a thorough review at the committee stage of the proposed policies that are listed in this legislation will help us answer questions and let members decide at that point whether on its merits, the legislation deserves to go to the next stage. I am going to keep my remarks more brief today than perhaps I would otherwise. I will conclude by again thanking my colleague and neighbour in Winnipeg for putting forward this legislation and enabling us to have an important discussion in this place about how we can support one another. I look forward to following the remarks to come from other colleagues as we decide whether to allow the legislation to advance to the next stage.

869 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/19/24 5:51:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-71

Madam Speaker, it is always a great privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Shepard. Over the past two years, constituents have written to me on multiple occasions, both for and against a universal basic income, and specifically on the legislation before us as well as what I will call its partner legislation, which is in the Senate. It is very confusing when the bills have almost the same number, and sometimes people get them confused. It is very difficult to understand when we are sent a bill number in the subject line but it is not explained whether it is S or C and I am left trying to figure out which legislation it is. I am always looking to respond, but sometimes I get it wrong, and then there is a conversation back and forth. I have taken the time to read the legislation over, and I want to give the member who sponsored it the benefit of going through each section on the merits of the content. I will be voting against the bill, so I want to explain section by section why that is. Clause 3 is on the national framework. This is the part that a lot of constituents have told me they have concerns about. There are those people who support it as well, but on the balance, my constituents want me to vote against it. It would create a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, and then it goes on to include temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants. It does not say “successful claimants”. It does not have the classification of protected persons. It does not refer to international students. It uses the wording “temporary workers”, which, when one reads it over, could mean a series of different things. The bill also does not have a royal recommendation. It does not seek to spend any money. Therefore when I was responding to constituents, I noted for them that the bill does not have a budget, an amount, assigned to it, which is one of the reasons I would vote against it right away, because it would create a framework legislation. I generally do not support framework legislation. I have on a few occasions when I thought it would not be an imposition of huge new costs. Subclause 3(2) has a consultation provision. Generally I like these types of consultation requirements with provincial, territorial and indigenous governments. I think they are more than reasonable. I come from the province of Alberta, where there is a requirement for the provincial government to consult, especially, for example, with Métis Settlements General Councils, or MSGCs. So far, I think Alberta is the only provincial government where it is a requirement; legislation affecting MSGCs cannot be changed without their consent. I think it is one of the first, if I am not wrong, among provincial governments, and I think it is a good idea generally. Now I will move on to the content, which is subclause 3(3). It says that the framework must include four different types of provisions in it. For example, “guaranteed livable basic income program does not result in a decrease in services or benefits meant to meet an individual’s exceptional needs related to health or disability.” Of course this would not be universal, which in my view would be equal treatment for all, exactly the same. I have read economics magazines and journals on the subject, which I will refer to in a moment, and they specifically state that a UBI or a negative income tax, which famously is kind of where the idea comes from, has to be completely equal to every single person regardless of their starting point. There is also information in paragraph 3(3)(c) that would ensure that “participation in education, training or the labour market is not required in order to qualify for a guaranteed livable basic income”, and I have questions about temporary workers being made eligible for something like this. As I said, international students are not mentioned, but international students, as of September 1 of this year, can continue to work 24 hours per week in our labour market. However, as non-participation would allow them to participate in this benefit, they are specifically excluded in subclause 3(1). I do not know whether that was intentional or not. Paragraph 3(3)(b) would “create national standards for health and social supports that complement a guaranteed basic income program and guide the implementation of such a program in every province”. I have two major concerns with this. One is that it would be an encroachment into provincial jurisdiction. My province gets to set what programs it wants. It does not have to in any way submit to the federal government when it is purely within its own provincial jurisdiction. Second, setting national standards would encroach on provincial health care and social supports. My province has an age for PDD programs, as do many others, and it would be an encroachment to set a national standard, even if we consult with them. Consultation does not always lead to agreements, and our Constitution is very clear that there are areas of exclusive jurisdiction. I know that is a comment often made by Quebec members of Parliament from different political parties, but it is one I think a lot of us Albertans make as well, that we have exclusive jurisdiction in many areas and we want the federal government to stay out of them. Paragraph 3(a) talks about what would constitute a livable basic income in “each region of Canada” without spelling out what “region” would mean. In the Constitution, Canada is separated into four regions, if we use the Senate rules: western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Hopefully that is not what “region” means in this sense, because I think our state has evolved quite significantly and the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia combined now have a bigger population than the province of Quebec. If I go on, there is a framework that is required to be tabled. There is more information on when it must be tabled and when the report must be provided to the House. I have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do. I did forget to give one when I started speaking on Bill C-71, and I will always admonish myself for doing so. It says: He who is aware of his folly is wise. In this instance, let us look at what is going on so we do not do something rash with our finances. We are facing a $40-billion deficit, and I wonder how we will pay for this. Jim Seeley, in my riding, wrote this great email asking a lot of questions about cost, percentages, who would be eligible, how would CPP and old age security work, just questions he was wondering about. I had to tell him I was not quite sure. I did go and look, though, at the government's projections for future years. When does it expect to have a surplus? From a surplus, presumably, we would then look at whether we could do a universal basic income or a negative income tax. There is a $20-billion deficit in the last financial year that is forecast. The Government of Canada expects to accumulate a deficit of $157 billion by fiscal year 2028-29, and that is without any new spending announcements. That means no new public infrastructure dollars added, on top of what has already been announced, and no new procurement. There would be nothing new, nothing extra above and beyond that, and the government would still run a $20-billion deficit, so I wonder how all this would be paid for. Finally, as I mentioned, a negative income tax has been talked about for at least the last 50 to 60 years. It was first proposed in a journal by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. He is often tagged as an economist of the right, which I do not think is entirely fair to him. Now, UBI and NIT, whichever acronym we want to use, work in slightly different ways but their goal is sort of the same. He recognized that a lot of public advocates on the left were generally very enthusiastic about the ideas he explained, especially the mechanisms his concept would work on and its end goal. Public advocates on the right were much less enthusiastic and heavily criticized him when he wrote the journal. He recollected this quite often. There is a great YouTube video I often send to constituents, for them to hear from him, the expert, on the logic of how it would work. One of the things he said about UBI, or NIT, is that there would be no other welfare programs competing at the same time. There would be fewer civil servants, who he called nannies, who would look over the spending of citizens, of how they were living their lives and what they were doing. To go back to my Yiddish proverb, I really hope we would be careful with the public's finances. We see it reflected in the polls, but I heard it while I was door-knocking in my riding of Calgary Shepard. My constituents are worried about the public finances. They are worried about a $40-billion deficit and about $150 billion more in debt being accumulated on the credit card of the nation. That is why I will be voting against this piece of legislation.

1640 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Sep/19/24 6:01:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-223

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to give my first speech since returning from the summer break. Before I talk about Bill C-223, I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Throughout the summer, I travelled thousands of kilometres to meet with people in my riding, visiting organizations and companies and attending galas and festivals. I met with seniors' groups to discuss the two classes of seniors created by the government through the pension regime. I had nothing but rewarding encounters. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who came out to see me or meet with me. Thanks to them, I am returning to Ottawa energized, with all kinds of plans and challenges to overcome. I am back in Ottawa with all their demands, concerns and problems on my mind. Let us come back to Bill C‑223. As we have heard, Bill C‑223 would require the Minister of Finance to develop a national framework to provide all persons over the age of 17 in Canada with access to a guaranteed livable basic income. It also provides for reporting requirements with respect to the framework. Let us start by understanding what is meant by guaranteed livable basic income. According to the Library of Parliament's legislative summary of Bill S‑233, a guaranteed basic income is “a cash transfer from government to individuals or families to provide an income floor below which no individual or family can fall.” Over the summer, my constituents shared many wonderful stories with me, but I also heard much sadder stories. These are very tough times. Everything costs more, and many people just cannot make ends meet. Some have had to choose between paying for prescriptions, paying for insurance and paying for decent food. For example, one mom of a three-month-old infant decided to feed her child canned ravioli because it is cheaper. Seniors are eating cat food so they can save enough money to pay for their medication. I met workers who can no longer afford a place to live, so they are sleeping on the couch at a family member's or friend's place or living in their car. This bill may be well-intentioned, but, unfortunately, it is another centralizing bill that encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction and that of the other Canadian provinces and the territories. Furthermore, it does not take into account the distinct nature of Quebec and the other Canadian provinces and territories. As we all know, the provinces and territories are responsible for administering their own social programs. Passing a bill like Bill C‑223 would mean stripping Quebec and the other provinces and territories of their jurisdiction and handing it over to a government that everyone knows cannot get the job done. If Quebec wants to, it can implement this kind of measure on its own, as can the other Canadian provinces and territories. Adopting and implementing such a colossal federal measure, in parallel with the Quebec government's management of its own many programs, would be a nightmare. Honestly, the Canadian government no longer has the means to introduce a measure like this in the current economic context, when inflation continues unabated, when historic deficits are swelling the public debt, and when the Liberals have no plan to balance the budget. The Liberal government cannot even live up to its transfer agreements on health, housing and many other areas. How can we trust a government that takes Quebec taxpayers' money only to engage in blackmail or impose conditions just to get a fraction of it back? We know the government's contempt for meeting its responsibilities. We know how hard it is to obtain adequate payments; too often, federal transfers are insufficient or non-existent. During this Parliament, we have seen how difficult it has been for this centralizing government to fix the fiscal imbalance. It takes far too much money to spend on its own, usually electoral purposes, but rarely for the benefit of Quebeckers. Passing Bill C‑223 would destroy Quebec's social safety net and wipe out the range of social services provided to Quebeckers. Quebec's tax system would suffer too serious a blow. The entire administration of the Quebec nation would have to be reset. Bill C‑223 operates on the premise that a measure like the basic guaranteed universal income would improve the gap between the rich and the poor, although the experts are extremely divided on the issue. I will give an example. In 2018, British Columbia, which was considering a similar measure, commissioned a report from a group of academic experts. The report concluded that a basic guaranteed income was not the best way to lift the poorest out of poverty. Instead, the panel recommended specific government assistance paired with existing social programs. According to their estimate, updating existing programs and creating specific assistance would have cost British Columbia taxpayers between $3.5 billion and $5 billion. In contrast, introducing a guaranteed minimum income for everyone would have cost nearly $52 billion. In no way does this bill or the people defending this concept take into account the enormous cost this would generate for the provinces. They would be forced to completely rethink how they manage their social programs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated the cost of such a nationwide measure at close to $98 billion over just six months. What happened in British Columbia only served to reinforce the position of the Bloc Québécois and the Government of Quebec that assistance for citizens should be targeted. In 2017, a panel of experts commissioned by the Quebec government found that “Overall, Quebeckers benefit from an income support system that provides significant assistance during the main stages of life during which citizens risk finding themselves in a vulnerable situation”. That same report also stated that “When viewed as a whole, Quebec's existing income support system partially meets the definition of guaranteed livable income”. In short, introducing a guaranteed livable income would have a major impact and would require either a significant tax hike or the end to many existing programs. It would create serious instability and bureaucratic structures and technological tools would not even be able to keep pace. In the future, it will be up to Quebeckers to decide whether they want a program like this one or whether they want to maintain the existing programs. It is certainly not up to Ottawa to tell us how to manage our social programs. What is more, there is no guarantee that this approach, however good it may look on paper, will be effective or meet its objectives. This is also a matter of fairness. Quebec has chosen to create social programs for health care, education, affordable day care, parental leave, car insurance, preventive withdrawal and so on. What is more, we see that Quebec's social programs are working because Quebec has one of the lowest rates of wealth inequality in the country, along with Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. If the government ever has the money to fund a program like this, which encroaches on provincial jurisdiction, I suggest that it take that money to help people 65 to 74 who were excluded from the OAS increase. It could also use that money to honour its transfer commitments to the provinces and territories. It could build more housing and infrastructure. It could pay its share of the costs incurred for asylum seekers in Quebec. I am sure that the government could find ways to use this money in areas under its own jurisdiction without encroaching on provincial and territorial jurisdictions, as it so likes to do. The fact is that this government has never interfered in the jurisdictions of Quebec, the other provinces and the territories as much as it has in budget 2024. Never before has Ottawa gone so far in its push to centralize powers. I understand the good intentions surrounding the introduction of this bill. However, again, the provinces and territories are responsible for introducing a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, not the federal government. For these reasons, we will not support Bill C‑223.

1394 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Sep/19/24 6:10:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the wealth in this country is disproportionately held by rich CEOs and their companies. That hoarding of wealth is hurting women, indigenous people, persons with disabilities and all people without the power or access to fight corporate greed. Canadians live in one of the richest countries in the world, yet many Canadians are grappling with the weight of poverty and financial insecurity at the expense of corporate greed. Canadians deserve a government that gives them the relief they need, not more handouts for rich CEOs and tax breaks for corporations. The inequality in society is stark. The cost of food has increased by over 20%, and we know that one in five Canadians is skipping meals. As we navigate this shifting landscape, people across Canada, especially those suffering the most due to systemic inequalities, are feeling the effects even more. It does not have to be this way. Poverty is one of the most avoidable, violent human rights violations in this country. Poverty is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canada can end poverty with this important bill, a bill that would provide a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. The bill was brought by my colleague, the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre. The NDP respects the charter rights of Canadians. Conservatives have already said that they do not respect the Charter and are open to bypassing it at will by using the notwithstanding clause. They are not supportive of this bill to end poverty. Basic necessities, such as food, housing and health care, are not just becoming more expensive, but are less accessible. This crisis is hitting marginalized people the hardest. Women, and disproportionately racialized women, are affected by rising costs and stagnant wages. They are the backbone of our communities and our economy, yet they are struggling to make ends meet. This is wrong. Under the Liberals' watch, we have seen basic necessities grow increasingly out of reach. We know the grocery sector is making record profits, and in 2023, it raked in $6 billion. This is unconscionable when families are struggling to feed their children, and workers across this country have to choose between rent and food. Seniors are skipping meals to afford their medications. Women who already face systemic barriers in the workplace are now forced to take on multiple jobs just to keep their bills paid. While the government made lofty promises, the reality on the ground is telling a very different story. The rising cost of living is not just an economic statistic, but a daily struggle for countless Canadians. Meanwhile, Conservatives want to cut spending on public services that support the most in need. They want to cut essential services such as child care, and I hear a beautiful child tonight in the chamber, which would disproportionately force women out of the workforce to care for their families. As well, they want to cut health care and pharmacare, which would only exasperate cost-of-living challenges. Conservatives, without a doubt, will put more Canadians into poverty. At a time when we are seeing record amounts of homelessness, with wages continuing to stagnate because of government after government's choice to choose corporations over Canadians, we need to give back hope. We need Canadians to know that, with a new government, things can get better, and not with cuts to important supports people rely on. This is not just a matter of politics, but a matter of basic human dignity. Canadians deserve better. Our communities deserve better. That is why we, in the NDP, are fighting for solutions that truly provide relief for Canadians. A guaranteed livable basic income would transform the lives of all Canadians. This is a transformative policy that would ensure every Canadian has the financial support necessary to live with dignity and security. Imagine a Canada where no one has to worry about where their next meal will come from or whether they can afford to keep a roof over their head. A guaranteed livable basic income would be a crucial step toward alleviating the economic struggles faced by so many, including indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, women and all marginalized communities. We heard at committee that children across this country are going to school hungry, and there is a wide array of intersectional issues that a guaranteed livable basic income would address for them. It would also empower individuals to pursue additional education without fear of massive debt. Workers could seek additional training without risking their livelihoods, and people could seek better work opportunities without the constant fear of financial losses. People who cannot work in this ableist society would have dignity too. The positive impact of a GLBI on people with disabilities cannot be understated. For many individuals living with disabilities, the current system is fraught with challenges: barriers to employment, limited access to services and a safety net that the Conservatives and the Liberals continue to wear away. Current estimates show that 1.5 million Canadians living with disabilities live below the poverty line, and close to a million of them are working-age people. A guaranteed livable basic income would provide the support needed for people living with disabilities. It would also help Canada meet its commitment under section 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as constitutional commitments to ensure the provision of essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians, something the government is not doing right now. The promise of a GLBI is not just theoretical. It is a realistic solution that has been successfully implemented in various forums around the world. Trials here in Canada have shown that when people are given a financial safety net, they thrive. The NDP understands that a guaranteed livable basic income is not just a policy; it is a commitment to building a more equitable society. The NDP would like to see this bill go to committee as soon as possible so we can hear from all communities that support a guaranteed livable basic income.

1015 words