SoVote

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

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

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Sep/19/24 6:17:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand in the House today for the first time after a summer break and speak to a policy proposal from the New Democratic Party on something I have always been very interested in looking at. I am always enthusiastic about any policy proposed in the House that aims to reduce or eliminate poverty in Canada. This project to bring forward a universal basic income is one that I am keenly interested in. Immediately, it caused me to look back on efforts over the last decade or so to implement something similar in the province of Ontario very close to my home; I grew up at the Chautauqua co-op in Oakville. The Liberal Wynne government in Ontario in 2017 brought forward a pilot project that would provide a basic income to 4,000 people across Ontario. That project followed recommendations made by Hugh Segal in consultation with various groups. It was a good start. Basic income would reduce poverty more effectively, and it could encourage work and reduce stigmatization, but more than that, it could also reduce a lot of the bureaucracy involved in the navigation of these various programs. Instead of using an old example, I will use a recent one. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had a gentleman in my office in Milton to discuss all of the confusion related to interim unemployment, related to his tenuous employment. He was navigating both the Ontario disability support program, Ontario Works, and employment insurance at the same time. With other benefits from the government, like the Canada child benefit and many others, there is a constellation of support programs that aim to reduce poverty in Canada. It is a lot of administration, there are a lot of programs, and when we cater all of these programs to various groups and various people, it is good because they can be very targeted. At the same time, sometimes it requires a master's in public policy to figure out how to maximize those benefits that we all pay for. I think about employment insurance often. People are often very reluctant to go on employment insurance in Ontario. I have a friend who just got laid off and said they do not want to go on EI. I asked why. That is the insurance that they have been paying into with every single paycheque since they were 16 or 17 years old. They deserve that money. The reason we pay into that program is to make sure we have stability. That stability could also be provided by a universal basic income, as proposed by this bill. Unfortunately, 10 months after the Liberal administration of this project in, I believe, Thunder Bay and Hamilton, Ontario, and a couple of other smaller municipalities, Doug Ford and his Progressive Conservative government, after saying they would allow the completion of the program so they could fully study it, cancelled it. They cancelled it very abruptly and left the 4,000 participants in this pilot project in the lurch and, quite frankly, devastated. For better or for worse, the Premier of Ontario has demonstrated the ability to change his mind quite often. Sometimes that has been good, such as when he decided not to pave the Greenbelt. At other times, like this, he went back on his word and cancelled a program he said was worth completing. It was worth completing, and this is worth studying. All the anti-poverty groups I have ever met with and continue to read about are in favour of a universal basic income. It is sort of sad to hear Conservatives talk about poverty elimination as a left-wing concept. I do not think poverty elimination is a left-wing concept. I think it is for everybody in the House. We should all be concerned with how legislation encourages poverty, creates poverty and sustains poverty in Canada. There is absolutely no reason for a wealthy country like Canada to have anybody in deep poverty. I strongly believe that a universal basic income is worth studying so we can look into all of the various ways to ensure we are doing the most for Canadians, whether they are employed, between employment, unable to find employment or, frankly, taking risks. Conservatives like to talk about how it is important, out there in the real world, despite their leader never having really ventured there, to be able to take risks financially. If we want to innovate, if we want to do art, if we want to practise something new, that might take some time. I love the idea that the universal basic income, or a guaranteed livable income, would provide people with the ability to take those risks, innovate, try something new, create art, maybe even try out for a new team or something like that, showing my stripes as an athlete. I applaud the member from the New Democratic Party for their work on this, and I am looking forward to hearing more throughout the debate.

844 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Sep/19/24 6:22:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-223 Bill C-22

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to speak about a topic on which I know there are a range of views. In a democracy, we can disagree, but I would say that everyone who has spoken tonight believes in helping Canadians, particularly those living in poverty. I spoke earlier today about how part of being Canadian is trying to help one another. I think many of the sentiments are good; it is just about how best to achieve that. While I certainly take issue with some elements that have been presented here tonight, I want to acknowledge that the member, who has submitted an idea for debate that she feels very strongly about, deserves credit for having brought this issue to the forefront. Bill C-223 is an act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, and first of all, it is important to say what this piece of legislation would do. It would not actually enact a guaranteed livable basic income. It is more of a framework to have further discussions so that at some point some sort of report can be done by the minister after discussing such a framework and doing subsequent work on it. There is lots to discuss. Milton Friedman, a famous American economist and, some would argue, one of the greatest economists of all time, talked about a reverse income tax that would pay people. There is the same type of thing in the bill, so this is not just found in left-wing politics. Some people have mentioned former Senator Segal, who had a long career. This is an area that has advocates on both the left of the political spectrum and the right. More than anything else today, I will say two things. First of all, I am speaking personally. I follow what political philosopher Karl Popper used to discuss, the use of something called “reverse utilitarianism”. Some may recall that utilitarianism is usually public policy meant to do the most good for the most people, to increase the general happiness for the most people. Reverse utilitarianism is reducing the suffering of those who suffer the most. Anytime we have a question about universal programs, we have to ask who would be receiving said programs. Universal programs are not cheap. That means that every single person, regardless of their condition, would have the ability, by their choosing, to opt into this framework to receive money from the federal government. However, we do not talk about persons with disabilities, those who have the toughest situations. By giving money to those who are able, we take away resources that could go toward helping those who have the most severe issues so they can live a fulfilling life within society. That is something we would do best to keep in mind. When the B.C. NDP government established a panel that did a report in 2020, one of its key concerns was that giving out money does not necessarily mean those who need it the most get the exact support they need. The cost of this has been brought up. University of British Columbia economist Kevin Milligan has argued that a universal basic income, whatever name we use, would be enormously expensive. That is something the panel said in its report. It also talked about the need to have some of these discussions. If we were post-World War II parliamentarians discussing Germany and other countries putting in a welfare state and whether we should consider doing likewise, perhaps after having a discussion as a young country with a tremendous amount of economic growth, our young population would be able to support such a policy. We then would have a legitimate choice between apples and oranges: the apples of the welfare state or the oranges of a universal basic income. However, we are not in that position. Our economic growth is not flowing. We have something called secular stagnation and the indebtedness of not just G7 and G20 countries, but of aging populations as well. We already see many provinces where businesses are complaining about a lack of workers. We have seen unemployment tick up. At a time where we are saying we need to have more people to build homes, why would we be inducing healthy individuals to take a benefit from the government and just take them out of the work force completely? I understand the sentiment behind the thinking of the member, but I do not think this is the right policy environment for this type of policy to go forward. Again, with our aging demographics, we want to encourage more people to work. Why is that? After talking to people, it seems that most Canadians think that our old age security system is a pillar that is important to support. It is, again, a transfer from existing taxpayers today, those who are paying taxes, who send their taxes to Ottawa in good faith, and then those transfers go out to what is becoming a larger and larger population of seniors. Suddenly switching the gears to where we are actually pushing people to consider not working, to me, makes it very difficult to support this kind of transition. Bear in mind that we also need to have a discussion as it is ultimately provinces as well that have a big role to play. Under our Constitution, the provinces are usually responsible for the social welfare of their populations. I do not think it will work for us to suddenly have a new federal program come down, especially with the way it would interact with each individual province and their systems of transfers, systems of grants and systems of programs and services. If we look to Bill C-22, which was passed in the chamber, it talks about creating a Canada disability benefit. I hope that we can all acknowledge the truth, which is that we have no idea how much someone would get from that particular program. We now know that the government would not give more than $2,000 a year, or $200 a month. The problem is that we have so many different programs at the federal and provincial levels, and they are already so costly. I just do not think that this is a good use of time and energy, although I appreciate its sentiment. I believe that we need to be thinking about how we can help out our fellow Canadians. This is a country where we look after our own. However, I have my worries about the economic arguments: our aging demographics, the lack of clarity of what provincial programs are doing and the fact that provinces such as B.C. have looked at this and have actually said that they are not proceeding with their own system, similar to what the member spoke of. Lastly, there is reverse utilitarianism at play. We should not be considering more universal benefits, in my opinion, without first asking ourselves what this would do to those who are suffering the most. I do believe that targeted programs, such as our guaranteed income supplement, should be looked at. We should always be trying to ask ourselves how we can help those who are in the most extreme need, who do not have an income to be able to look after themselves, or those people who, unfortunately, due to some circumstance, have a disability that does not allow them to engage in Canadian society like the rest of us. I will be voting against this. I do appreciate there are a number of people who have spoken very strongly about this. However, if it comes down to it, I only have two choices, either to support this or not. I reluctantly will just say that I am not going to be in support of a whole comprehensive change to our support programs for the reasons that I have given.

1340 words

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

Sep/19/24 6:32:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak to the important piece of legislation before us. I want to start by thanking the member for Winnipeg Centre for doing a tremendous amount of work on the issue of a real universal basic income for people. The legislation is very simple in that it says it is about creating a wide framework to look at a lot of the issues that the Conservatives have expressed some concerns about: How do we do this, what is the best way to do it and would it be the most effective? When we look at the state of our society right now, we see an increase in poverty, and we see it in the numbers. We know that everyday people working hard are making a pretty stagnant income; the level of their income is staying where it has been for a very long time. At the same time, the wealthiest people in this country and in many other countries are seeing a huge increase. Our system is essentially becoming unfair. That is why we need to start looking at innovative programs like universal basic income. It says that we need a bar of dignity in our country that nobody should fall below. I am not unlike every other Canadian who lives in their community. More and more people are struggling. More and more people are living on the streets. I always say that it is easy to judge people who are living on the streets. I know who I am, but if I were put out on the streets with nothing, I have no idea who I would become. That is what is happening in this country. People are becoming disposable, but there are no disposable people, and it is wrong that we are at that point. Something like a guaranteed livable income would make sure people have the resources they need. I do not know whether members in this place are being as thoughtful on this as they might be. Today a veteran spoke to us at committee, and one of the things he talked about is how the system in Veterans Affairs under the Conservative and Liberal governments has become increasingly more frustrating. If a veteran comes home with trauma and illness and is suffering in some way, their partner has to fight for the money because it is a separate part of the bucket of money that goes to veterans. I do not know how many people have talked about the fact that they do not have enough time to work as much as they would like to because they are caring for their loved one. When we keep making little buckets of money and people have to find out whether they are available and whether they are allowed to receive it, the system fails for so many people. They are falling through the cracks, and by the time they have fallen through the cracks, the need is so high that addressing that need becomes overwhelming. This work has been done in different places. I can think of one place in Ontario where the Liberal government did it not too long ago. Mental health outcomes got better and people got to work. For people just trying to survive, who have absolutely nothing, it is really hard to dress nicely enough to go for an interview. It is really hard to find the time, if there is nobody to watch their kids, to get out there to do those things. When people have a stable income, it does not make them not work. I am tired of listening to the Conservatives say that. It is not true. People thrive in opportunity, but it is hard to thrive when people do not know how they are going to survive the next day. I think of people in my riding. I am going to be talking about this again and again. Right now, seniors have a guaranteed livable income in our system, which is the guaranteed income supplement. The CPP was raised for the poorest seniors in Canada. The government did not think about it for a minute, so what happened the next year? Their GIS got cut substantially, and now seniors are trying to make it through the month. They lost money because nobody plans. That is why we need a holistic program that serves everyone.

732 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/19/24 6:37:12 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor for her right of reply.

14 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Sep/19/24 6:37:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start out by thanking many people, specifically, Basic Income Canada, Manitoba, UBI Works and, of course, the Hon. Senator Kim Pate, whom I partnered with on the bill; she presented it on the Senate side. It is time for a guaranteed livable basic income to bring together people across Canada who are falling through the cracks. I want to urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to make a final effort to get this passed to committee. I have heard today that it is just a framework. There are limits with PMBs. There is no budgetary allotment in it. We are not allowed to do that within the parameters of a PMB, but we are allowed to put in a framework. All together, we can get the framework to committee for further study. I know that many people, all MPs across this Parliament, heard from their constituents over the summer that people everywhere are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of living. The people we represent need real solutions. We have income guarantees in this country: EI and GIS are income guarantees, but they are not livable. I am not proposing anything new. All I am proposing is to make current income guarantees livable and expand them for people who are falling through the cracks. Somebody said it is not for international students. My bill very clearly states that it is for anybody over the age of 17 residing in Canada. We know that, in recent years, policy-makers largely abandoned efforts to invest in our people and our communities, focusing instead on investing in huge corporations through subsidies and tax breaks. To those who say that, if we have a basic income, people will stop working, I say that is false. Research, time and time again, has proved that to be false. There is no evidence that a basic income discourages work. In fact, it does the exact opposite. For example, the Canada child tax benefit is a kind of basic income in this country for families. Mothers do not work less; they actually work more. The Canada child benefit grows the economy. If we want to talk about benefits to the economy, there is two dollars for every dollar invested, and it keeps 250,000 families out of poverty and contributes 450,000 jobs to the economy. Basic income is good for the economy. The myth of the poor person trying to game the welfare system is nothing more than poor-bashing. What is far more common is the ultrawealthy gaming the system to evade paying taxes. To those who say that, if we have a basic income, inflation will get worse, that is false. Inflation worsens when the government borrows money or increases the money supply, but this is not necessary to introduce a GLBI. Every cent needed to support a basic income is already being spent in this economy on corporate subsidies and inefficiencies in the social safety net. To those who say a basic income is too expensive, let us start talking about the high cost of poverty, such as the fact that it costs $225,000 a year to house one woman in a federal penitentiary. Let us talk about the high cost to our health care system; poverty keeps people sick and causes a strain to our health care system. That costs a lot of money. Governments dump billions of dollars into criminalizing poverty rather than addressing its root causes. I am asking all members of Parliament today to study this more. I am asking for members to lend their votes to get this to committee. Instead of basing decisions on false understandings of a GLBI, let us really study it. Let us at least support the bill to get it through second reading, so we can study it and make policy decisions based on facts, not assumptions. I thank everybody who is supporting the bill. It means a lot to hundreds of thousands of people, including the many seniors who support the bill and, of course, those in the disability community, who are critically left out of the social safety net.

697 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/19/24 6:42:17 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:42 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

83 words

Deputy

Ms. Leah Gazan

Sep/19/24 6:42:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/19/24 6:42:59 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

25 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Sep/19/24 6:43:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. After nine years of the NDP-Liberals, housing, gas and groceries cost more, and hard-working Canadians increasingly cannot pay their bills, yet the NDP-Liberal government wants the carbon tax to continue to rise to add 61¢ per litre, driving up the cost of almost everything. When we tax those who farm, who transport, who warehouse and who retail, we tax the one who buys. Families will already be paying $700 more for food this year than in 2023. The carbon tax has already been such a costly disaster for Canadian small businesses and for family pocketbooks that there are fewer politicians in Canada now defending it. In their latest desperate publicity stunt, both the leader of the NDP here and the NDP premier of British Columbia have tried to make Canadians believe that now, on the eve of, or with the possibility of, an election, they were opposed to the carbon taxes, which they have strongly supported their entire political careers. Who can believe their baloney? The NDP voted to defend the carbon tax 24 separate times in the House, even though 70% of Canadians wanted to cancel the increase earlier this year. The Fraser Institute reported that a carbon tax that continues to increase to 61¢ per litre would cost the average Canadian worker $6,700 by 2030. It is estimated that it will also reduce Canada's GDP by 6.2% by 2030, resulting in 164,000 fewer jobs. The federal carbon tax will also have a negative economic impact on Canada's real gross domestic product, the GDP, of $25 billion by 2030, according to the government's own figures, numbers the government tried to hide even from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is just carbon tax one. Recently, Conservatives forced the government to turn over documents on its second carbon tax, which show carbon tax two will cost the Canadian economy an additional $9 billion by 2030. The carbon taxes are not an environmental plan, but a tax plan. Forcing carbon taxes on Canadians has not stopped a single natural disaster. Meanwhile, the NDP-Liberal government killed green energy projects, such as Sustainable Marine Canada's tidal energy project and continued to import dirty oil from foreign dictators with poor environmental standards. Canada fell to 62nd out of 67 countries on the climate change performance index. Canadians are not going to be fooled. The phantom finance minister, carbon tax Mark Carney, may now be writing government policy from the boardroom of the Liberal Party of Canada, but it was just one year ago that he wrote that the Prime Minister was wrong even to exempt home heating fuels from the carbon tax. Canadians face a clear choice between a continuing cost-of-living crisis with the costly coalition or a Conservative government that would axe the tax.

493 words

Carbon

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Sep/19/24 6:47:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have been here before and we have talked about this before, with the member opposite and with many other members. The last I checked, Kelowna—Lake Country, a beautiful place, is in British Columbia. There is no federal price on pollution in British Columbia. In fact, it was a Liberal government in British Columbia that brought forward Canada's first carbon pricing system. It has been in effect for over a decade and it has been drastically reducing the emissions of British Columbia since then. For the first time since the 1990s, Canada has our emissions under check. Just recently, yesterday in fact, the Canadian Climate Institute said that, once again, in 2023, Canada's emissions had fallen. In addition to that, they said that one of the chief reasons for that was because of carbon pricing. Whether it is on the industrial side or the consumer price, carbon pricing works. I do not have a Nobel Prize, and last time I checked, there were no Nobel Prize winners in this House of Commons, but one person has, in fact, won a Nobel Prize for carbon pricing. He has said that Canada's carbon pricing system gets it right. The Conservatives have been using these lines about what is up. Instead of talking about what is up right now, I would like to talk about what is down. Currently, inflation is down to the target range of 2%. Canadians are still having a difficult time financially, no mistake about that. However, when inflation comes down, that means prices are on their way down as well. With that 2% inflation rate, which is right in line with the Bank of Canada's goals, we also have seen that interest rates are down. With inflation coming down, one of the chief causes of that is lower gas prices. Gas prices have hit lows that we have not seen since around the pandemic when they fell because people were not driving as much. If, as the Conservatives say, carbon pricing is causing inflation, the price on pollution in Canada has gone up every year for the last four years and over the last four years, our inflation has steadily come down. Either the Conservatives cannot do math, or they think Canadians are so stupid that they cannot do math, or both. I actually would not put it past them that they might just be willing to treat Canadians with no respect and will keep using these tired tag lines instead of putting forth some actual policies that would grow our economy and reduce our emissions. Gratefully, we are doing just that. We are following the lead of British Columbia. My colleague from Manitoba loves to heckle me, he does it all the time and it does not impact me whatsoever. Again, they are not very good arguments that he puts forward. We have made it very clear, Canadians get more money back through the price on pollution, the Canada carbon rebate, than they pay. That is true and has been clearly stated by the PBO, by 300 economists across this country, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That means that low- and medium-income households benefit the most. I know I am talking to a Conservative right now, and they do not typically care too much about low- and medium-income households, usually just focusing on corporations, millionaires and which oil and gas CEO is asking them to do one thing or another. However, we did just finish a debate on a guaranteed livable income, and things like this, the Canada carbon rebate, the Canada child benefit and the GIS mean more money in Canadians' pockets and that actually helps Canadians. What does not help Canadians is tired three-word slogans from the Conservative Party of Canada.

637 words