Hon. Kim Pate, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report on a road map for post-pandemic economic and social policy to address the human, social and financial costs of economic marginalization and inequality, when and if the committee is formed;

That, given recent calls for action from Indigenous, provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions, the committee examine in particular potential national approaches to inter-jurisdictional collaboration to implement a guaranteed livable basic income; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Motion No. 6 to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to examine and report, no later than December 31, 2022, on a roadmap for post-pandemic economic recovery that incorporates the urgent need to address the human, social and financial costs of economic marginalization and inequality.

This pandemic has been likened to a storm at sea. While some of us are on a sturdy, multi-storey, well-serviced, stable ship with robust engines, others face the same waves without even a life preserver, let alone a rowboat minus the oars. This pandemic has not affected everyone equally.

During the first year of the pandemic, the financial situations of one in five Canadians, primarily those with incomes over $100,000, improved. People like us were relatively well protected. Our jobs and our income were never in peril because of the pandemic. Meanwhile, for far too many, the situation was dire. Canada’s unemployment rates skyrocketed to heights not seen since the Great Depression.

In responding to the pandemic, the government has stated that a healthy, resilient and vibrant economy is an economy “for all.” Canada’s economy does best when we uphold values of substantive equality, when the economy is inclusive and when no one is abandoned to poverty or prevented by poverty from contributing to their communities to their full potential.

The government created laudable financial supports, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, to ensure safety and dignity for individuals and stability for economies. And yet, by design, these “life preservers” did not reach those most in need.

Those who were on social assistance and were unable to work prior to the implementation of CERB could not access the program, which offered previously employed folks $2,000 per month.

How do you think the average child leaving care fared in Toronto, for example, with $390 for housing and $343 for food every month, or how the average single mom fared each month in isolation trying to obtain housing for less than $700 and nutritious food for her and her children for $360 per month?

Too many of those who received the CERB also faced desperate financial situations. According to media reports, for people with disabilities and for close to 90,000 low-income seniors, drawing CERB in the past means that they now cannot access the full amounts of income supports they would usually rely on. The situation is particularly stark for many who received CERB in good faith, but now face repayment orders on top of receiving less of their usual entitlements. Their struggles echo those of other marginalized groups, particularly recipients of provincial and territorial social assistance and youth transitioning out of state child welfare “care.”

The pandemic policies excluded those most vulnerable and marginalized, leaving them in the lurch. The results are devastating from both a financial and a human and social perspective. Two in five Canadians — those with the least, those living in poverty — struggle every day with the stressful realities of hunger, housing and personal insecurity, in addition to the spectre of illness and homelessness.

This week, the government listed addressing child poverty as one of its priorities in the Speech from the Throne. According to the report card just released by Campaign 2000, more than 1.3 million children — nearly one in five of those who represent Canada’s future — are growing up in poverty, deprived of necessities and opportunities that have become intergenerational. The chasm between children who have and those who do not is wide and deep.

The Canada child benefit is also lifting fewer people out of poverty than when it was introduced. It is not providing sufficient support to those in profound poverty.

On the housing front, things are just as dire. More than 250,000 households in Canada have accumulated over $350 million in rental arrears since the onset of the pandemic. Though the National Housing Strategy aims to build 150,000 new units of housing over the next 10 years, approximately 235,000 individuals experience homelessness each year and 1.7 million households lack the housing they need.

Black and Indigenous peoples are 2.7 times more likely than the overall population to report incomes inadequate to allow them to pay rent. Of Indigenous people in urban centres, 1 in 15 will experience homelessness, compared to 1 in 128 for the general population.

Failing to address poverty also carries punitive economic costs for government and for all of us. Indeed, the cost of poverty in Ontario is conservatively estimated at $27.1 billion to $33 billion per year, and $72 billion to $84 billion per year in Canada in the forms of lost tax revenue, health care, prison and legal system costs.

Let’s consider poverty in the context of health care. Living in poverty doubles or triples the chances of developing diabetes and complications such as blindness and cardiovascular disease. On a human level, this is unacceptable. However, if that weren’t enough, poverty also results in an estimated additional $7.6 billion cost to the Canadian health care system.

And what about poverty in the context of the criminal legal system? Of women in prison, 80% are there for poverty-related crimes. The most common convictions for Indigenous women are theft under $5,000, theft over $5,000, fraud, and trafficking drugs or stolen goods. Most of the women convicted of violent “offences” are criminalized as a result of their attempts to negotiate poverty, violence and racism.

In this light, it is not surprising that the Public Health Agency of Canada stated in 2008 that:

. . . $1 invested in the early years saves between $3 and $9 in future spending on the health and criminal justice systems, as well as on social assistance. . . .

Honourable colleagues, despite these glaring inequities, the situation is remediable. We can work together to reduce these disparities. We can and we must work to find the best path forward. This study could help us to lead the way.

At the height of the pandemic in 2020, the National Finance Committee recommended, among other measures, examination of the potential of a guaranteed livable basic income to unite and align human, social and economic well-being. This study would allow the committee to delve into this question in an in-depth and expanded way, considering issues including the role of the federal government and the federal spending power in light of the intersection between federal, provincial and territorial responsibilities, programs and finances; the relationship between Indigenous nations and the federal government and economic approaches to decolonization; as well as issues of design and cost of programs, including potential examination of tax fairness and reform.

This study could allow us to examine how, for instance, here in Ontario, despite the pandemic, Dufferin County reduced chronic homelessness in its community by 50% thanks to a combination of housing allowances and support services; how Guelph and Wellington County reduced chronic youth homelessness by 43% during the first year of the pandemic; how London, Ontario, ended homelessness for veterans; and how Medicine Hat, Alberta, became the first city in Canada to end chronic homelessness.

This motion aims to map a way forward for inter-jurisdictional collaboration to economic recovery that prioritizes overall well-being, not merely GDP. Economic recovery must include poverty eradication within the context of social, gender and racial equality.

This month marks the fiftieth anniversary of the 1971 Croll report, from the Special Senate Committee on Poverty. This committee recommended that:

. . . the Government of Canada implement a Guaranteed Annual Income . . . on a . . . national basis . . . financed and administered by the Government of Canada.

Since then, the 1985 Royal Commission of the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada recommended:

. . . the provision of a Universal Income Security Program with relatively low guarantee levels and tax-back rates is an appropriate long-term goal for the Government of Canada and the provincial governments to pursue . . .

In 2008, former Conservative senator Hugh Segal and former Liberal Senator Art Eggleton championed guaranteed livable income in this chamber and beyond. As a result, the report of the Senate Subcommittee on Cities recommended a federal annual income replace the current provincial and social assistance schemes.

Just four years ago, this chamber passed Senator Eggleton’s motion calling on the government to support provincial, territorial and Indigenous initiatives aimed at evaluating the cost and impact of guaranteed livable income programs.

Two years ago, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called on the government to implement this fiscally responsible step to addressing the needs of Indigenous women in order to assist them to escape violence, homelessness, prison and death.

Honourable colleagues, interest in a guaranteed livable basic income is far from new. What’s more, it’s absolutely doable. The Parliamentary Budget Officer provided one example of a way guaranteed livable basic income could be achieved at a net-zero cost. Dr. Evelyn Forget and other progressive economists have proposed additional approaches. In B.C., an incremental approach was advocated.

Virtually everyone agrees on replacing existing provincial and territorial social assistance programs with income-tested cash transfers that provide resources sufficient to live on. Prince Edward Island is looking for federal assistance to implement a basic income guarantee.

Over five years, a guaranteed livable income could increase GDP by between 1.6% and 2.4%, create between $46 billion and $80 billion in new government revenues, and create between 298,000 and 450,000 new jobs. The potential to increase economic growth and human well-being is obvious.

Honourable colleagues, two out of three people in Canada believe implementing a guaranteed livable income to ensure that everyone can afford basic necessities is the right thing to do. This motion reflects the reality that we must make additional effort to consider those who are too often left behind or forgotten when we think of national recovery.

Currently, acute financial problems can result in chronic poverty. It can happen to those who least expect it; those trying to escape violence in their homes; those expected to care for their children, elders or people with disabilities; those who lose their jobs; and those who have health challenges.

Poverty shortens life expectancy by some 21 years.

Poverty intersects with and worsens systemic racism in gendered ways. Racialized women are 48% more likely to be unemployed and earn 55.6% the income of non-racialized men.

Senators, the aim of this motion is to enable us in this place to do what we do so well: namely, taking into account the interests of those whose needs are not front and centre in the other place. Let’s work to ensure that every Canadian is considered as we map the road to recovery. I look forward to working with each and every one of you and to honouring the legacy of those who have gone before us as well as the interests of those who have yet to be considered.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Thanh Hai Ngo, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That the Senate note that, by adopting the Journey to Freedom Day Act on April 23, 2015, and taking into account the first two elements of the preamble of the said Act, the Parliament of Canada unequivocally recognized violations of:

(a)the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam and its protocols (Paris Peace Accords); and

(b)the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam; and

That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to call upon six or more of the current parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam, which include Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, amongst others, to agree to the reconvention of the International Conference on Viet-Nam pursuant to Article 7(b) of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam in order to settle disputes between the signatory parties due to the violations of the terms of the Paris Peace Accords and the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today on a matter of great importance: to reintroduce my motion for the Government of Canada to call upon six or more of the current parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to agree to reconvene the International Conference on Viet-Nam. As you may recall, my motion died on the Order Paper because of the 2021 federal election. Today, I am delivering my speech and reiterating the same arguments that I raised on June 29.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, in an effort to end the Vietnam War and come to a lasting resolution, the Agreement On Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam and its protocols, commonly known as the Paris Peace Accords, were signed by the U.S.; the Republic of Vietnam, called South Vietnam; the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, called North Vietnam; and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Vietnam, called Viet Cong, in Paris on January 27, 1973.

[English]

According to Article 19 of the Paris Peace Accords, from February 26 to March 2, a second international conference was held again in Paris, which, among other things, established the International Commission of Control and Supervision rules of conduct and its reporting mechanisms to support the agreement’s implementation. The conference was concluded on March 2, 1973, by the signing of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam, wherein the parties of the Paris Peace Accords and eight other countries — Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, the U.K., the Soviet Union and China — pledged they would, henceforth, not only uphold and support its terms but also abide by its provisions, including those related to foreign interference. Both the Paris Peace Accords and the act were registered with the UN Secretariat on May 13, 1974.

In addition to the many Canadian soldiers who died during the Vietnam War, Canada made significant contributions toward the effort to reach a lasting peace in Vietnam. It was part of the first International Commission for the Supervision and Control — Vietnam, established by the 1954 Geneva Agreements. It was also the part of the second International Commission of Control and Supervision, the ICCS, established by the Paris Peace Accords, sending peacekeeping forces in 1973 to investigate compliance and uphold its provisions. More importantly, it is a signatory to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

[Translation]

As one of the signatories to the act, Canada played an integral supervisory role in the effort to support peace. As part of the ICCS — along with Poland, Hungary and Indonesia, which were at the time, respectively, communist countries and dictatorships — Canada made key contributions by investigating and overseeing that respect of the ceasefire, withdrawal of troops and return of captured military and civilian personnel were maintained.

[English]

Despite the subsequent invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam’s Communist forces in 1975, in absolute violation of the Paris Peace Accords and of the act, I believe they remain valuable diplomatic tools for the resolution of disputes between signatory parties that arise from violations of their terms.

I wish to draw your attention to Articles 7(a) and 7(b) of the act, which provide a useful mechanism for dispute settlement in the event the Paris Peace Accords are infringed upon. Article 7(a) allows the parties to determine necessary remedial measures:

In the event of a violation of the Agreement or the Protocols which threatens the peace, the independence, sovereignty, unity, or territorial integrity of Viet-Nam, or the right of the South Vietnamese people to self-determination . . . .

Article 7(b) states that:

The International Conference on Viet-Nam shall be reconvened upon a joint request by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam on behalf of the parties signatory to the Agreement or upon a request by six or more of the Parties to this Act.

[Translation]

Canada has a vested interest in continuing to uphold stability, peace and democracy in Asia. To this end, it is incumbent upon Canada’s government to call upon six or more of the current parties to the act to agree to reconvene the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

There are compelling arguments that indicate there are sufficient grounds to engage Article 7(b) of the act and thereby reconvene the said conference.

[English]

On April 23, 2015, the Journey to Freedom Day Act was adopted. The first two elements of its preamble acknowledge the involvement of Canadian Armed Forces by assisting in the enforcement of the Paris Peace Accords and the subsequent invasion of South Vietnam by military forces of the Vietnam People’s Army, and the National Liberation Front in 1975. Considering these two elements of the said preamble, the Parliament of Canada unequivocally recognized violations of the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam and its Protocols; and the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

Not only are there no provisions within the Paris Agreement allowing the parties to terminate it, but also the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides the mechanisms for states to either withdraw, terminate or suspend treaties, is inapplicable in this case because it came into force after the Paris agreement was reached. Article 4 of the Vienna Convention regarding its non-retroactivity makes it impossible to invoke it. Furthermore, the United States has never ratified it.

[Translation]

Additionally, when the U.S. and Vietnam decided to establish diplomatic relations after the fall of Saigon and the reunification of South and North Vietnam, public statements referring to the Paris Agreement were made by their respective officials, thus suggesting it could be considered as still in force, at least in part.

[English]

As is the case with the Paris Peace Accords, the act is bereft of provisions that allow for its termination or sunset clauses to apply. Also, since the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties came into effect after the act, the convention is also inapplicable to the act. Contrary to the Paris Peace Accords, where customary international law makes it difficult to give a clear-cut and conclusive answer because of the ambiguity regarding its status, in this particular case one must look to customary international law to interpret the act. Such an interpretation would imply that the act continues to be in force, as it specifically provides a mechanism for the international conference to be reconvened without the U.S. and Vietnam jointly requesting it. Therefore, the act continues to be binding on the other eight signatory countries. Furthermore, the act is also listed among multi-party treaties and agreements by the U.S. Department of State as still being in force as of January 1, 2020, with Canada still listed as one of the parties.

For the purpose of reconvening the international conference in accordance with Article 7(b) in fine, Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, the U.K., the U.S., Russia and China — most of which are democratic countries, including Hungary, Indonesia and Poland, which were not at that time — should be considered as being the current parties to the act. To reconvene the international conference, at least six of them must agree. Alternatively, and pursuant to Article 7(b) in limine, the reconvening of the conference could also happen if the U.S. and Vietnam jointly request it, provided that Vietnam clearly states its intention to continue North Vietnam’s participation in the act.

Ultimately, if there is consensus among the parties that the Paris Agreement continues to be in force, it can be reopened and renegotiated. The same applies to the act; in its case, it would allow for the international conference to be reconvened in accordance with Article 7(b).

Reconvening this international conference can also be a valuable mechanism in initiating negotiations in some of the most pressing geopolitical issues in Asia today, such as the South China Sea dispute. Articles 4 and 5 of the act indicate that its signatories, including China:

. . . solemnly recognize and strictly respect the fundamental national rights of the Vietnamese people, i.e., the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Viet-Nam, as well as the right of the South Vietnamese people to self-determination. The Parties to this Act shall strictly respect the Agreement and the Protocols by refraining from any action at variance with their provisions.

In 1974 and 1988, China invaded Vietnam’s Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands respectively. These invasions are in violation of the act, allowing any signatory country to reconvene the international conference as per the conditions set out in Article 7(b) of the act.

On December 30, 1974, President Ford signed Public Law 93-559. Section 34(b)(4) requires the U.S. executive branch to reconvene the international conference in the eventuality of any violation of the Paris Peace Accords. By the intermediary of Article 7 of the act, and by invoking the spirit of public law 93-559, the U.S. has legal grounds to initiate a reconvening of the international conference and to force signatory governments to the conference table.

This past April, during an appearance at the House of Commons Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, Minister Harjit Sajjan, the Minister of National Defence at that time, said:

. . . Canada opposes land reclamation projects and building outposts in disputed areas for military purposes. We support lawful commerce, freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight in accordance with international law.

We will continue supporting our allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region, especially in the face of unilateral actions that undermine peace and stability.

The minister also delivered a similar speech during the twelfth annual Conference on the South China Sea held in Vietnam in November 2020. It’s worth mentioning that Canada is also actively maintaining a naval presence in that region.

Colleagues, for all of these reasons, it is therefore of the utmost importance to reopen this important debate and give serious consideration to reconvening the historic, multilateral forum that is the international conference on Vietnam. I truly believe this would be a vital policy tool and a useful means for diplomatic and peaceful resolution of conflicts in Asia, and I ask for your support. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]