SoVote

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

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

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Sep/19/24 6:51:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for the member to insinuate that I do not care about residents in my community who are low- or middle-income is pretty awful and pretty shameful. This Liberal member has made the Liberal Party position very clear about the carbon tax, well, unless it is carving out exceptions due to fear of losing elections, like it did in Atlantic Canada. Conservatives and most Canadians, including those in my community, do not want to keep paying the carbon taxes. The facts are clear that Canadians are forced to eat less, they are skipping meals and they are buying less healthy food. There is lots of information on this. There are more lineups at food banks, in the millions, just to make ends meet. Just recently, Food Banks B.C. reported that it had served 100,000 food bank users in a single month for the first time. Canadians cannot afford to endure 12 more months of this cost of living crisis. They should be given the choice to axe the tax and have a carbon tax election.

179 words

Carbon

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Sep/19/24 6:52:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a shame that the Conservatives keep using the words of the food banks completely out of context. When the food banks propose these things, they also make recommendations. None of the recommendations is to use any of the tired three-word slogans or eliminate a program which is actually supporting low- and medium-income housing. The Conservatives also like to completely ignore the fact that climate change impacts poorer folks more drastically. I want to say again, Kelowna—Lake Country is in British Columbia, which does not have a federal carbon price. If the member wants it eliminated, then she needs to talk to the Premier of British Columbia. They are working on lots and lots of different environmental protection projects out there, and I would encourage them to do that. As I said, inflation is down, interest rates are down, gas prices are down and so are emissions. That is thanks to our sound economic policies, not thanks to tired three-word slogans.

169 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Sep/19/24 6:53:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on April 15 I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs if the government could tear itself away from its NDP partner's traditional anti-Israeli ideology and take a strong stand against the Islamic regime in Iran's missile attacks against Israel and support that country's right to exist and to defend itself. Now that the Liberals no longer enjoy the unconditional love of the NDP to remain in power, is the government finally able to formulate a balanced foreign policy that supports efforts to attain peace in the region? Is the government also able to fully condemn the actions of the Islamic regime in Iran, a rogue nation that supports terrorists and does nothing to restore the peace process? Canadians are concerned about the government's inability to combat anti-Semitism in Canada, enforce our hate laws and remove from Canada organizations like Samidoun that are linked with a listed terrorist organization. Moreover, the government recently indicated that the Liberals are prepared to abrogate Canada's defence agreement with the U.S. by blocking the sale of Canadian arms to the U.S. that may be destined for Israel. This divergence from the existing arms agreement would not only lead to our American allies thinking Canada is no longer a reliable partner and is failing to live up to the agreement's terms; it would likely lead them to a re-evaluation of our integrated defence industries. The government cannot have it both ways. Either it supports Israel's right to defend itself, or it does not. For eight months, the government has not issued any permits for sending weapons or weapon components to Israel to defend itself. Moreover, if Canada does block arms sales to the U.S., Canada would be in violation of the 1956 Defence Production Sharing Agreement, which is a key military trade deal between our two countries. Most Canadians support Israel in its war against Hamas. Let us remember that Israel did not start this war. We will soon be observing the first anniversary of the horrific October 7 attack against Israel by Hamas, when over 1,200 Israelis were killed and hundreds were taken hostage; 101 remain in captivity. Let us also not forget the Islamic regime in Iran's massive missile attack on Israel or that Hezbollah has fired over 8,000 rockets at Israel since October 8. Canadians fail to see the logic of the Liberal government. In the face of unprecedented anti-Semitic riots across Canada, with supporters of Hamas and the PFLP roaming around and spewing their hate propaganda with immunity, and with attacks launched against Israel by Hamas, the Islamic regime in Iran and its proxies, the Liberal government announces an arms embargo on Israel. What a brilliant policy initiative. Tehran does not want peace. When it launched its missile attack against Israel, it was not to defend Hamas or to avenge the deaths of Palestinians. It was to destabilize the region and disrupt the Abraham Accords, yet no one saw the Liberal government demanding that Tehran stop supplying arms to Hamas. Canada did not come up with any arms embargo for Tehran. Instead, Canada decided to weaken Israel and its ability to defend itself. Why?

541 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 6:56:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start by restating, and will continually state, that Canada unequivocally condemns the attack by Iran against Israel. This attack only serves to destabilize the region and further escalate violence, which is disproportionately killing innocent people: women, children, the elderly and the disabled. This violence achieves nothing. It is completely unacceptable and it must come to an end. Our government has been clear. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. The IRGC is a terrorist organization. The violence must stop. Canada has been calling for an immediate, sustainable ceasefire for months. It cannot be one-sided. Hamas must release all hostages and lay down its arms, and humanitarian aid must urgently be increased and sustained. The pathways that assure it must be maintained as well. Rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian relief must continually be provided to civilians as long as this conflict continues. Israel must listen to the international community. The protection of civilians is paramount and a requirement under international law. Canada will continue to push proactively to take every measure possible to ensure there is no further escalation and that we bring peace and stability back to the region. That is everyone's goal. The minister has been in contact for many months with her counterparts in the region on this very thing, and our overriding goal is to see an end to the suffering of those caught in the middle of this conflict. Since civilians continue to bear the brunt of the unfolding tragedy, Canada's commitment to providing life-saving humanitarian aid remains unwavering. We urge all involved parties once again to refrain from perpetuating the current destructive cycle of retaliatory violence, to lower tensions and to engage constructively toward de-escalation. No country or nation stands to gain from a further escalation in the Middle East.

307 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong

Sep/19/24 6:59:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to the issue I have raised, I will re-ask my April 15 question of the Liberal government, realizing that it is no longer controlled by its NDP masters. Will the government finally focus on the actions of the Islamic regime in Iran and its proxy Hamas and reacquaint itself with our long-standing policy in support of Israel's right to exist and defend itself? Moreover, can the government assure Canadians that the Liberals have truly abandoned their 2015 election promise to normalize relations with the Islamic regime in Iran, before the next election rolls around? Given the government's recent policy initiatives, Canadians would not know it.

113 words

Hamas

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Sep/19/24 7:00:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would reiterate that Canada is committed to lasting peace in the Middle East, which includes the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. That two-state solution needs to be a priority for anybody who is committed to lasting and sustained peace in the region. Unfortunately, I did not hear the term “two-state solution” in my colleague's speech today. All Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live in peace and security. Canada will continue to call for a sustainable ceasefire. All hostages must be released, and Hamas must lay down its arms. We are committed to working collaboratively toward an irreversible path to achieving a two-state solution where Israelis, Palestinians and other people in the region can live securely and within internationally recognized borders. The only realistic option to achieve a just and enduring peace is just that, and Canada will continue to be there and will work with our partners and allies. Once again, the violence must stop.

176 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Sep/19/24 7:01:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am coming here tonight in reference to a question I asked on April 10, when I was calling on the government to honour its commitments to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action on indigenous languages. I would be remiss if I did not talk about a legend, Oh Ha Kuum, which references a lady of high standing. Really, it means a queen in Nuu-chah-nulth language. Last month, the Nuu-chah-nulth people lost Tuu paat mit, whose English name was Julia Lucas, and she was pre-deceased by her partner in life, Simon Lucas, who was, like her, a great leader of their people and for all indigenous people, not just Nuu-chah-nulth people, but people across British Columbia and Canada. Tuu paat mit honoured me with the name Yaac'aaqsts, which means “one who walks amongst us” and has provided me with advice and guidance over the years. I want to thank her family and her for the name. She will be greatly missed by all those who loved her and by the many in whose lives she made a difference. Tuu paat mit was one of only a few fluent speakers of the Hesquiaht dialect of the Nuu-chah-nulth language. She began teaching in the elementary school at Hot Springs Cove 40 years ago, with very few resources and much less time. She taught the Hesquiaht language to the children with just a half hour a day allocated to cultural education. With three other fluently speaking elders, she worked in the final years of her life to mentor young apprentices to pass on the language to the next generation. Her life's work will inspire others to carry on because future generations depend on it. Tuu paat mit knew there was nothing more important to the health and social well-being of indigenous people, their families, their communities, their economies and their spirits than the survival of their language. In follow-up to that, across British Columbia, first nations people are facing the loss of language holders such as Tuu paat mit, and there is an urgent need to invest in language revitalization before it is too late. In British Columbia, nearly two-thirds of fluent speakers are older than 65, and seven languages have only five or fewer speakers left. First nations have fought to keep their languages alive, and between 2018 and 2022, there was a 20% increase in the number of people learning their language in B.C. While the number of language learners is growing, the number of remaining fluent speakers is falling. As I outlined when I talked about Tuu paat mit, there is grave concern that the progress made in recent years will be lost without urgent government support for indigenous language programming. However, instead of investing in language revitalization at this critical time, the federal government is cutting funding. The Liberals' new funding formula has actually led to a 60% reduction in funding for first nations language programs in British Columbia. That funding formula does not consider British Columbia in the unique context of being home to more than half of indigenous languages in Canada, and across the province, in 204 first nations, there are 36 unique languages and more than 95 dialects. The First Peoples' Cultural Council, a first nations-led Crown corporation working to revitalize first nations languages in British Columbia, has written to the government about the funding cliff it is facing. This year's budget provided significantly less funding than in previous years, and the drop in revenue has opened the door to the loss of hundreds of jobs, service cuts and cancelled community programs. These cuts put the preservation and revitalization of first nations languages and cultural heritage at risk.

635 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 7:04:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House of Commons on this important issue with my friend and colleague from British Columbia. Our government has repeatedly committed to supporting indigenous peoples in their efforts to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages. We recognize the important work that has been accomplished by indigenous communities across the country since the passage of the Indigenous Languages Act, and we remain committed to working with them to continue implementing the act. Guided by the principle of “nothing about us without us”, every aspect of the implementation of this act is carried out jointly with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners, recognizing that indigenous peoples are best positioned to lead the revitalization of their languages. For example, our government has implemented new funding models for indigenous languages that prioritize indigenous peoples' autonomy and control over financial decisions based on their priorities. We have also introduced long-term funding agreements to support multi-year strategies. This approach respects first nations' governance structures and decision-making processes. I recognize the unique circumstances of indigenous languages across Canada, particularly in British Columbia. Those include first nations in British Columbia. Therefore in December, the Minister of Canadian Heritage met with the First Peoples' Cultural Council in B.C. to discuss indigenous language issues. The First Peoples Cultural Council is a long-standing partner, and its efforts serve as a model for managing Canadian Heritage's indigenous languages funding, providing support to first nations communities and organizations in developing resources and innovative approaches to advancing indigenous language preservation and revitalization. This is one of the reasons the department signed a memorandum of understanding in June 2022 with the Province of B.C. and the First Peoples Cultural Council, which establishes a framework for ongoing collaboration and commits to the parties to advance predictable and sustainable funding for the revitalization of first nations languages, cultural heritage and the arts. Under the memorandum of understanding, a five-year agreement for $103.9 million, starting in 2023-24, was signed with the First Peoples Cultural Council. Our government recognizes that reclaiming, revitalizing, strengthening and maintaining indigenous languages requires a long-term commitment on our part. We will continue this important work in collaboration with our indigenous partners.

381 words