Senator McCallum: Senator Pate, my question is around the violence that occurs in the communities. Stemming that violence has many origins and they require different interventions, and some of those interventions go beyond legislation. They cannot be legislated. Those are societal responses. The communities need to play a part in what is happening in their communities. For that reason, I arranged a meeting with Senator Boisvenu and Indigenous groups in Winnipeg that are addressing this violence, and they are working hand in hand with Senator Boisvenu now.

I think that, like you said, it is not a stand-alone. I have seen this happen time and time again with legislation and there was no community involvement. The work that’s being done by the communities in Winnipeg is successful, and they are willing to work with Senator Boisvenu. Wouldn’t it be good for this to go to committee so that people can hear about what is happening at the community level?

Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Boisvenu, for both your speech and your ideas. I would love to work with you on that kind of initiative and I would welcome that opportunity. I am troubled, however, by your suggestion. Given that you know that there are many of us in this chamber who similarly have family members who have been murdered, sexually assaulted and victimized, as well as the fact that we know police organizations, women’s groups and victims’ groups do call into question the issue of mandatory minimum penalties, especially when it comes to the issues you ended your speech with, namely, Indigenous women — that is partly why it is one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

I am troubled by your suggestion that the bill would actually repeal mandatory minimum penalties. In fact, it is quite the opposite. You stress the importance of section 718.2(e) especially for racialized prisoners and, in particular, for Indigenous women. Yet, that is precisely what the impact, the import and the role of the bill would be. It would be to allow, in exceptional cases, those mandatory minimum penalties that the courts have already challenged, including the Supreme Court of Canada, when they said in R. v. Luxton that when considering the life sentence for murder, the only thing that saved it from being unconstitutional was the fact that there was a “faint hope clause,” and we now no longer have it.

Would you agree that you have perhaps overstated a bit the fact that this bill will repeal mandatory minimum penalties? In fact, it won’t do anything of the sort. In exceptional cases such as the ones discussed by a number of us in this chamber, it might provide judges an opportunity to give reasons as to why they would not utilize the mandatory minimum penalty.

[Translation]

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, before I begin my speech on Bill S-233, allow me to express my great admiration for Senator Pate’s work on the penal system and her tenacity in promoting an unconditional guaranteed livable basic income program. I share her desire to see an end to poverty. I recognize, as she and others have pointed out, that receiving a stable basic income has positive effects on the physical and mental health of each person.

However, it is possible to achieve the same results with public policies that are less costly and more equitable and socially acceptable than the policy proposed in Bill S-233.

Even though I hold Senator Pate in great esteem, the socio-economic problems raised by Bill S-233 are so important to me that I cannot support the bill.

[Translation]

Bill S-233 would require the Minister of Finance to develop a national framework to provide all persons over the age of 17 in Canada, as well as permanent residents, refugees and temporary workers, with access to an unconditional guaranteed livable basic income.

Throughout history, a few philosophers and some economists have promoted the idea of an unconditional guaranteed basic income, or GBI. More often than not, they were described by their peers as utopians.

In the early 1960s, right-wing economist Milton Friedman gave new life to the idea of GBI when he proposed a negative income tax in his famous work, Capitalism and Freedom. He sought to reduce the role of the state and to privatize social programs. Certain right-wing and left-wing groups have praised him since.

In most industrialized countries, the social safety net we know was developed around concepts of mutualization, reciprocity and social inclusion. It relies on participation in the workforce, social insurance, targeted income-based benefits and social assistance for those in need. This system can be improved. Unfortunately, it is incompatible with a system based on an unconditional guaranteed livable basic income, as provided for in Bill S-233.

Several studies have shown that this idea is not economically realistic and is questionable in terms of fairness and social acceptability.

Why is a GBI is economically unrealistic? The answer is simple: its cost is prohibitive. A GBI would help just over 11% of those living under the poverty line by giving 100% of all adults a basic income. To fund such a GBI, we would have to completely overhaul the income tax system.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently calculated that it would cost $87.8 billion in 2022-23 to implement a GBI program similar to the pilot project that Ontario launched in 2017 for adults aged 18 to 64. These estimates are based on a basic income of $17,000 for a single person and $24,000 for a couple, reduced at a rate of $0.50 for every dollar earned on top of the basic income. The cost of a basic income increases rapidly as the clawback rate goes down, as was pointed out in another PBO report released in 2020.

In 2019, the Basic Income Canada Network estimated the cost of providing a guaranteed annual income of $22,000 for Canadians aged 18 and over at $187 billion a year if the government clawed back $0.40 per dollar earned. Bill S-233 takes a similar approach. That is the equivalent of all federal personal income taxes in 2021-22, which totalled $189.4 billion.

A universal benefit is even more costly. A guaranteed income of something like $22,000 for every Canadian adult would cost $637 billion according to the Basic Income Canada Network. That is almost twice the federal government’s total revenue. Even after taxes, that kind of basic income would absorb all federal revenue. In short, the cost of a guaranteed basic income is prohibitive.

That is the issue. To finance this kind of program, governments would have to overhaul the income tax system. The tax changes it would take to fund such a program would have a negative effect on labour market participation, not because people are lazy, but just because they are rational. In essence, the number of people supported by the program would exceed the number of people the government set out to help initially. Fewer hours worked means fewer hours taxed, and that means less revenue for the government. In short, paying for guaranteed basic income is unsustainable.

As you know, not long ago, the Government of Quebec struck a committee to come up with a plan for implementing a GBI, and the Government of British Columbia created a panel to set up a pilot project. Both groups rejected the feasibility of such a program. The British Columbia panel rejected the very idea. Why? Because no pilot project could capture all the macroeconomic consequences of financing a GBI system.

[English]

I quote from the B.C. panel:

Many Canadian basic income proposals suggest eliminating most or all tax credits, including the basic personal amount, to create a “self-financing” RTC basic income. This would be a fundamental reform of the tax system that would mean tax becomes payable with the first dollar earned, increasing disincentives to work for low-income earners not on Income Assistance.

The report adds that these taxes would generate insufficient funds.

The panel continues:

Eliminating programs could be another alternative, but we believe that the many services provided by the existing programs aimed at meeting basic needs—in combination with cash transfers—are essential to a just society.

The report concludes:

. . . as we have emphasized a basic income must be considered in the context of how it is financed and how the changes made to taxes and programs to cover its costs combine with the incentive effects of the basic income itself. Impacts of the financing aspects of a major basic income could exceed the incentive and economic effects posed by the benefits alone.

[Translation]

My second point has to do with fairness and social justice. The two provincial expert panels analyzed the impact of a guaranteed basic income from the perspective of social fairness through the philosophical principles of social justice that have been outlined by the well-known philosopher John Rawls. According to these principles and that philosopher, a guaranteed basic income can cause major social fairness problems. The short explanation is easy to understand. An equal basic income for all is not necessarily fair, because it does not guarantee equal opportunities for all. Let’s not forget that everyone has different needs. Conversely, a targeted approach can better ensure the principle of equal opportunities.

As the British Columbia expert panel pointed out, and I quote:

[English]

Moving to a system constructed around a basic income is not the most just policy change we can consider. The needs of people in this society are too diverse to be effectively answered simply with a cheque from the government.

The report further reads:

We are also concerned about the implications of a basic income for the society we will share in the future. A basic income emphasizes individual autonomy—an important characteristic of a just society. However, in doing so it de‑emphasizes other crucial characteristics of justice that must be, in our view, balanced: community, social interactions, reciprocity, and dignity. The basic income approach seems to us to be more individualistic than the way we believe British Columbians see themselves.

[Translation]

The work of American philosopher Elizabeth Anderson reached similar conclusions.

Our current system provides support to all people in need through a variety of different programs, which, I repeat, could be improved at both the federal and provincial levels. These programs are more responsive to the diverse needs of all those who experience hardship under different circumstances and at different times in their lives than an equal basic income for all at all times would be.

Because the guaranteed basic income is a one-size-fits-all solution, implementing this approach could have unintended and undesirable consequences.

Here is an example to illustrate my point. According to the latest report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which discusses the income distribution effects of GBI, a low-income single-parent family could lose $5,315 per year as a result of the implementation of GBI. However, it is precisely these families, which are usually headed by women, that we want to help.

Esteemed colleagues, I join Senator Simons in encouraging you to reflect on how Bill S-233 will affect young people. How will society be able to provide roots and wings for its children if they are handed a basic income as of the age of 18 without any corresponding requirement for education, training or participation in society? Would a parent, even a wealthy one, agree to finance their 18-year-old who decided to drop out of school or a training program and refused to work? To ask the question is to answer it. Should these be the principles on which our society is based?

I now want to talk about political issues. Colleagues, Bill S-233 raises issues of social acceptability and constitutional problems. In March 2022, I conducted a poll with Angus Reid on work ethic and GBI. The results will soon be available on my website.

I’ll give an overview of the findings.

Firstly, Canadians have a work ethic that has remained consistent through similar polls that I conducted in 1981 and 2014. Roughly 79% of Canadians think that every adult who is able to work should work to earn a living. However, 54% of Canadians would like to be able to live without working. That is why the idea of a guaranteed basic income polarizes Canadians. While 46% of Canadians support this idea, 37% are against it. When we ask Canadians if they are prepared to pay for this program through their taxes and reduced services, only 19% of Canadians are prepared to do so, while 62% are not. What is more, only 5% of Canadians strongly support the idea of funding a guaranteed basic income through increased taxes and reduced services, while 43% of Canadians are strongly opposed.

GBI is an attractive idea, but Canadians are not prepared to cover the cost. Who would pay for it then?

Bill S-233 also raises real constitutional issues. It involves eliminating many social transfers to the provinces. The federal government could unilaterally decide to do so. It goes without saying that the provinces would react vigorously. The provinces are not ready to accept this, nor are they prepared to hand over their social assistance responsibilities to the federal government. The discussions would be endless.

In conclusion, there are solutions we can work on to reduce poverty in Canada. The Poverty Reduction Act, which we passed in 2019, seeks to reduce poverty and sets targets linked to the United Nations 2030 Agenda. The British Columbia and Quebec reports describe many inspiring opportunities for action. For example, the two reports recommend the implementation of a guaranteed basic income, similar to what already exists for seniors and persons with living with disabilities, and it is quite feasible.

Recommendation No. 5 of the Quebec report proposes the implementation of a program to facilitate transitions in the labour market and training. It provides several realistic proposals for reducing and preventing poverty.

The current system, which is preferred by industrialized nations and promoted by the OECD, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations, has proven to be successful. It reduces poverty and, above all, it helps prevent it.

[English]

There are many solutions we can work on to eliminate poverty and inequality in Canada, but a GBI should not be one of them. It’s time we abandon this utopian dream for pragmatic, rigorously tested, targeted programs that will reduce and prevent poverty, provide skills and training and create an inclusive labour market. Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Pate. Regarding the whole Indigenous issue, I’ve reviewed some court decisions, and a number of judges referred to the Supreme Court’s direction to take cultural factors into account during sentencing or to issue rulings that are more favourable to Indigenous communities. These are people who live under very specific circumstances. For my bill, I had the opportunity to talk to many members of Indigenous communities, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Poverty and violence among Indigenous people is much more of a social issue than a criminal one.

We obviously do not have the same perspective on your bill. I disagree with the approach you’re taking to achieve your goal of ensuring that judges all have the freedom to decide on sentencing, rather than being restricted to minimum sentences in some cases. The Supreme Court already authorizes judges to depart from minimum sentences in exceptional cases if they can justify their decision.

Unfortunately, when I spoke to Crown attorneys this week, I learned that even judges are not fully informed on decisions made by the Supreme Court. If you go back 5, 10 or 15 years, you might be surprised to learn that some Supreme Court directives have not been followed.

What I am saying is that the approach your bill takes shifts the debate, in my opinion, because currently, judges can, in some exceptional cases, choose not to impose minimum sentences. Why abolish those sentences or change the system? If you’re telling me that this bill does not abolish minimum sentences, then why introduce it, if judges already have the ability, in accordance with the Supreme Court directive, to decide whether or not to apply them, provided they can justify their decision?

[English]

Senator Pate: Perhaps you could point me to where, exactly, that provision is. I know you read out part of a decision, but that was regarding one mandatory minimum penalty saying the judges did not have to apply it. One of the challenges is there have now been at least 43 court decisions striking down mandatory minimum provisions. We now have a patchwork across the country of where the law applies, and where it doesn’t. In fact, there is no ruling that says judges do not have to not impose mandatory minimum penalties, hence the reason for Senator Jaffer’s bill. Would you not agree?

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Robert Black moved third reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-227, which seeks to designate the Saturday of the August long weekend as food day in Canada.

At the outset, I would like to thank Senator Simons for taking my place as Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee in order to allow me to act as a witness for Bill S-227. I would like to thank Senators Poirier and McCallum for speaking to this important bill, and I look forward to hearing from them in the near future. Finally, I would like to thank the agricultural industry for their widespread support of this bill and to the witnesses who appeared before the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to share their thoughts on the establishment of a national food day in Canada.

Colleagues, you have heard me time and again highlight the importance of the agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada. Food is at the heart of our homes, our communities and our economy, and one positive thing that has emerged from this pandemic is that many Canadians, especially those outside of rural and agricultural communities, have become far more interested in learning about where and how their food is grown.

In terms of access to food, we are so very lucky here in Canada. In fact, Canada is one of the largest producers and exporters of agriculture and agri-food products in the world. I and many others, including industry stakeholders, believe it is high time we acknowledge the important role that agriculture and local food play in Canada with a cross-country celebration.

The establishment of food day in Canada will raise the pride and confidence that many of us have, and that many more of us need to have, in the food we produce in Canada, not only for our own domestic use but for international folks abroad as well. It will promote discussions around food sovereignty and food security.

While I mentioned that we are extremely lucky to have access to such a bountiful agri-food sector, there are still Canadians who struggle to access affordable and nutritious foods. This is something that must be addressed going forward. No Canadian should go hungry.

During the Agriculture and Forestry Committee’s meeting on this bill, we heard how important it is for our future generations to understand that our farmers, producers, processors and agri-food retailers work hard to produce good food. Canadians young and old need to see for themselves that their agriculture communities care about the land, the commodities they grow and the animals they raise.

We have some of the very best natural resources, countless talented leaders in the industry and highly innovative technology and equipment to feed our country and the world.

It is clear that having a nationally recognized food day in Canada can help our friends, neighbours and future generations understand that there is so much to learn about agriculture and food production in our country.

At the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, we also heard from witnesses about the value of such a tribute to Canadian ingredients and the good people in the food system, as well as the immeasurable value of positive support and trust in Canadian food and farming, especially in light of how much we have learned about our domestic food system over the course of the pandemic.

If established, this annual celebration would not only see Canadians join together in a celebration of our food — and the people who make it happen, from our farms to our forks — but also encourage Canadians to continue learning about our agriculture and agri-food industries. It’s a chance to highlight and appreciate the diverse and nutritious food products we have access to.

Agriculture and agri-food are critical industries that contribute not only to the whole of our nation but also to countries around this world, not to mention that increasing the awareness around the world of food produced in Canada and the good food that we grow is absolutely critical as we increase our reach and work to achieve the targets that were outlined in the Barton report a number of years ago.

Honourable colleagues, when we talk about local food, we are also talking about people in our everyday lives. We are talking about the farmers who grow the crops we drive by as we travel Canada, the agri-businesses that produce the food we see on the shelves, the restaurateurs and chefs who feed us and the vintners and brewers who brew the wine, beer and spirits we enjoy.

Local food is about much more than just what we eat; it is about Canadians. If passed, Bill S-227 would give Canadians a reason to celebrate not only agriculture and agri-food but also everyone who makes up the vast food supply chain coast to coast to coast together every summer.

At this time, I’m pleased to share that the bill has had resounding support from all parties in the other place. I’m hopeful that we can pass this expeditiously here in the Red Chamber to ensure that a nationally recognized food day in Canada will take place this summer.

However, regardless of the outcome of my bill, I would like to thank all of you in advance for your support in celebrating Canadian food from coast to coast to coast all year-round.

Thank you, meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker: We will suspend for one hour.

Senator Clement, when we return, you will have the balance of your time. Thank you.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

[Translation]

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the second reading of Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Clement, but I must interrupt.

It is now six o’clock and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I’m required to leave the chair and suspend for one hour, unless it’s the wish of the Senate to not see the clock.

If honourable senators wish to suspend, please say “suspend.”

Senator Plett: Suspend.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Use of displays, exhibits and props in Senate proceedings, tabled in the Senate on April 5, 2022.

The Hon. the Speaker: My apologies, but Senator Bellemare’s time has expired. She will have to ask for time to answer questions.

[Translation]

Are you asking for five more minutes to answer questions?

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?