View source for Government Discussions on Basic Income

=== Hansard - Parliament ===

==== Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) ====
[<sup>S-109</sup>] [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/11483247 2021-12-03 12:10], In Support , '''International Day of Persons with Disabilities'''<br />
 Madam Speaker, with thanks to my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam, on this International Day of Persons with Disabilities, there have been consultations among the parties and if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following important motion: That given that 50% of the homeless and half the people who rely on food banks in Canada are Canadians with disabilities, the House call on the government to put into place, without delay, a guaranteed livable basic income for Canadians with disabilities.

==== Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East) ====
[<sup>S-110</sup>] [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/11490071 2021-12-08 14:18] , In Support<br />
 Mr. Speaker, food bank use in Canada climbed 20% with the pandemic and topped 1.3 million monthly visits. It is the largest increase since the 2008 recession.<br /><br />With the clawback of the GIS and the Canada child benefit, and the elimination of COVID emergency benefits, food banks face further increases in demand. Food banks alone do not solve hunger. They are a symptom of the root problem of poverty.<br /><br />Who are the faces of poverty? They are families, women, seniors, people with disabilities and low-wage earners. They are our friends and our neighbours. Fixed income earners’ buying power has been decimated and we can do something about it.<br /><br />Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent received unanimous support for his motion in 1989 to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. That was more than three decades ago. The Liberal government has a chance to address the affordability crisis with the fiscal update. A guaranteed livable basic income is the path forward.<br /><br />Better is possible.

==== Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) ====
[<sup>S-111</sup>] [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/11494863 2021-12-10 13:39] , In Support<br />
 Madam Speaker, “we are all in this together”. That is a phrase that has been uttered a lot since the pandemic first struck the country and for a time, that was true. There was a real sense of solidarity in our communities. We felt it across the country; we felt it here in this place, such as that was.<br /><br />In the very difficult days of the early pandemic, we were able to secure proposals to help people that went above and beyond the government's initial proposals, because there was a real spirit of collaboration and working together to get things done and get them done quickly. That is why it was not a $1,000 a month benefit as the government initially proposed, but a $2,000 a month benefit for people who had lost their employment. It is how we were able to negotiate a benefit for students who originally were not going to be captured by the government's plan.<br /><br />We negotiated a one-time payment for people living with disabilities and for seniors, although what we would really like to see is the government take responsibility for ensuring that they have a guaranteed livable basic income at a rate that is above the poverty line, something that we have not yet seen.<br /><br />We were able to get meaningful improvements through negotiations in this place and that is what it meant for a time to say that we are all in this together. That is not the approach that Bill C-2 represents. It is not the approach that it represents in its substance, but it is also not the approach that the government has taken in the way that it is managing Bill C-2 through the House, in the early stages of its development before it was tabled. There was no discussion with other parties as far as I know, certainly not with us prior to the announcement on October 21, and there has been very little since.<br /><br />The motion that is before us right now is about dividing even more. From this moment of solidarity and over the course of the last 20 months or so, the government has slowly been edging back from that sense of solidarity, and with Bill C-2, actually just turning its back on the idea that the Prime Minister just ran on in a campaign in September saying that they would not leave anybody behind.<br /><br />However, splitting the bill would make that problem worse because there are two components to the bill. One is a component that provides help to businesses directly and to workers in those businesses. The other is something that is supposed to be there for workers who are self-employed or workers whose businesses do not opt to apply for the wage subsidy for various reasons, or maybe whose businesses do not quite meet the qualifications, but who nevertheless find themselves not able to work. We know that there are businesses that have let people go during the pandemic, but nevertheless did not qualify for the wage subsidy. There are all sorts of ways in which workers will continue to need help directly. In fact, we know that in October, there were still 900,000 of them that were needing that direct support.<br /><br />We are not going to get to the point where we are negotiating effective solutions if we are picking off industries or particular players and advancing the programs that are there for them and leaving the others out of the discussion, particularly the ones with the least amount of economic clout and leverage themselves, the individual workers. Individual workers in exposed industries like hospitality and tourism or arts and culture are not a big business with their own personal lobby that can come to Parliament Hill and meet with 338 different MPs, just about one for every day of the year. They do not have that kind of money and that is why they are not reflected in the government's proposals in Bill C-2.<br /><br />If we are going to solve that problem, we need to keep the components of the legislation together so that we are not picking some winners and allowing others to be losers any more than is already the case. That is why we in the NDP feel very strongly it is important to keep the bill together, a bill that frankly, we do not support because we do not think it goes far enough.<br /><br />However, if we are going to get back to a place where we can have some meaningful negotiation, a situation that we did obtain in the last Parliament, then it is important that we are negotiating for everybody. We cannot leave the most vulnerable and those most hard done by in the current economy behind while accelerating the help for industry players, who have also been very much hard hit. It is tough, and we do want to see that help go to that industry, but we do not want to see some being helped and not others, or say that we will speed one up, but leave another to languish.<br /><br />We need to maintain that sense of us all being in it together, instead of being picked off one by one in a divide-and-conquer strategy to ultimately roll back pandemic support for Canadians. That is where we actually see a pretty close affinity of intent and interest between the Liberals and Conservatives right now, who are talking about the extent to which they are going to roll back those supports. The widespread agreement there is that the supports are going to get rolled back.<br /><br />The supports rolled back pretty naturally under the conditions of the program. Regarding the CRB and the CERB, at one time there about nine million Canadians availing themselves of the CERB. On its own, without government kicking anyone off the program, by October this year there were just under 900,000. That is a reduction in the program of over 90%, and therefore, a reduction of over 90% in the spending. As people could find work, they were leaving the program.<br /><br />How many times have we heard Conservatives talk about how they want to see program spending reduced? This is a program whose spending had been reduced by over 90% because we in the NDP actually believe that Canadians do want to work. We believe that, but we also recognize that in the pandemic economy, such as it is, that is hard to do.<br /><br />We recognize that there are a lot of people who desperately want to work, but the jobs are not there for them. It is not because there are not jobs available, but it is because people lost work in a particular sector, with a particular set of skills and a particular education, and those are not necessarily the jobs that are available now. Therefore, there is some work for us to do here, in conjunction with employers and employees, to talk about what jobs are available, who is available to fill them and how we train the people who are available to work in the jobs that are available. However, that is not the discussion we are having here.<br /><br />The discussion we are having here is how to go from a program that was still supporting 900,000 Canadians who needed financial support in difficult economic times to a program that, to date, does not even apply in one single place in the country and that will not provide financial support to one single worker in the way the CERB did just a month or two ago. That is a big difference, and that difference is what the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have in common.<br /><br />I think the Conservative finance critic sometimes thinks he is a champion for workers. He certainly said as much. The member gave an interesting history lesson about the Magna Carta. He even waxed poetic about how the green here represents the commoners who were there at the Magna Cart when they signed a lovely deal that meant that there would be no taxation without representation. Indeed, he talked about the peasants.<br /><br />He needs to know, and this is his blind spot and the blind spot of both Conservatives and Liberals, that the people who signed the Magna Carta with King John were not the commoners. The people who signed the Magna Carta with King John were the aristocrats and the barons who ruled over the peasants. They took taxes and whatever they wanted from them without any representation for them. That is the problem.<br /><br />The Conservatives have this kind of mystical understanding of the Magna Carta, that it was this great progressive moment. It was an important moment on the road to democracy. A little over 600 years later, universal male suffrage would come to the United Kingdom, and it would be another 50 or 60 years before women had access to suffrage on the same terms as men in the United Kingdom. Therefore, yes, it was a milestone that laid the groundwork for some progress centuries later.<br /><br />I think the Conservative finance critic misses a few steps. It is not an innocent mistake, and it is not an inconsequential mistake. Those same barons who were there to sign the Magna Carta are not unlike the 1% today who, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported this week, own 25% of the wealth in Canada now.<br /><br />That was not always the case. Around the turn of the century, it was more on the order of 11% or 12%. Now 1% of the population is sharing 25% of the wealth in Canada, and 40% of the population is sharing 1% of the wealth. That is the tale of the one per cents in Canada right now. We have 40% of people sharing 1% of the wealth and 1% of people sharing 25% of the wealth.<br /><br />The way we got there has a lot to do with both Liberals and Conservatives. That is why the Conservative finance critic wants to focus so much on the Bank of Canada lately. He does not want to talk about all the capital that was hoarded over the last 20 years or so. That is now being used in the real estate market, and had been used in the real estate market to cause significant inflation in housing well before the pandemic struck. There is no question there has been massive housing inflation since the pandemic began, but that is not where it started. It has been going on for a long time.<br /><br />It has been going on since the corporate tax rate was cut from 28% in the year 2000 to just 15% today. We have seen overwhelming increases in the amounts of dividends that are paid out. Who are some of the people who are gaining the biggest amount of money from dividend payments as a result of corporate tax cuts? They are that 1%. That is how we got to the point today where 1% of the people own 25% of the wealth.<br /><br />In the year 2000, the capital gains inclusion rate was cut from 75% to 50%, and nine-tenths of the benefit of that tax cut over the last 20 years has gone to the top 1%. That is cash in hand for them, and they have been sitting on it until they had a moment to spend it in a way that would create more money, just as the Conservative finance critic likes to talk about.<br /><br />However, they are not getting all of that in liquidity from the Bank of Canada. They are getting it from increasing returns as corporations pay less and less of a share of government revenue. In Canada 65 years ago, corporations paid 50% of government revenue. Today, they pay 20%. That means individual Canadians are picking up 80% of the tab when they used to have to only pick up 50%.<br /><br />The Conservatives will say, and Liberals will join them in saying, that if we cut their taxes they will invest back in the economy and that will create jobs and wealth. That is true to a point, except the cash holdings of corporations and the wealthiest individuals have skyrocketed over the past 20 years while the corporate tax rate went from 28% to 15%.<br /><br />In fact, investment in real assets and productivity has stayed constant at around 5.5% of GDP. Even the late Jim Flaherty, whom some might remember, sat on the Conservative side of the House and scolded corporate Canada at one point for the extent to which it was failing to reinvest money from corporate tax cuts back into the economy.<br /><br />The amount of $25 billion is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer, hardly a partisan office, has estimated that Canadians are losing every year to tax havens legally. That is how we got to the point that 1% of the population in Canada now owns 25% of the wealth. That has about doubled over the last 20 years or so.<br /><br />There is a story to tell about the Magna Carta. There is a story to tell about wealthy individuals with a lot of pull and influence being able to constrain the government in a way that benefits them while they squash the people under them and take the value of their work for themselves.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is not that old of a story. It is an old story in the sense that it has been going on, but it is not a history lesson. It is a contemporary economic lesson, and we need to figure out how we are going to change that. That is why I am proud to have run on the idea of a wealth tax for fortunes of over $20 million, which does not cover a lot of Canadians.<br /><br />It is pretty hard to get outraged at this idea for people who have amassed more and more of the economic pie. Their proportion of the pie has grown far more quickly than the pie itself, which means more and more people are sharing less and less, and people wonder why we do not have money to fund public services. It is not that we just magically have less money; it is that the people at the top are paying far less than they used to. They are hoarding that wealth, or they are spending it on themselves or they are using it to make investments in the real estate market, which is driving up the cost for everybody else. That is the real problem.<br /><br />Therefore, I am always glad to talk history and economics with the Conservative finance critic, but there are some facts missing from his version of events when he talks about the Magna Carta. The people who are forgotten in his story are the same people who are being forgotten in Bill C-2. They are the people who have been unable to get back to work and were depending on a government that said it would have their back. However, they found that within a month after the election, with two days' warning, the very same Prime Minister who said he would have their backs turned his back on them. This is what we are dealing with in Bill C-2. If we are going to get to a decent solution, we are going to do it by talking about everyone at the same time instead of hiving them off into sections, leaving some to languish and others to get the help they genuinely need.<br /><br />Make no mistake, the New Democrats are in favour of people getting the help they need and getting it rapidly. It is why we have not had any secrets about what we think needs to happen and what the government needs to do as we pass Bill C-2. In fact, we will have some suggestions on how it can include these measures in Bill C-2; how it can stop the clawbacks of the GIS, the Canada child benefit and the Canada worker benefit; how it can implement a low-income CERB repayment amnesty so it is not chase after people, who are already losing their homes, for about $14,000 in debt. In some cases, these people are negotiating payment plans for $10 a month. How long it is going to take for the government to get its $14,000 back at $10 a month?<br /><br />Meanwhile, some of the largest publicly traded companies, like Chartwell, TELUS and Bell, gave huge dividends to their shareholders during the pandemic and increased the amount of their annual payout by anywhere from 3% to 6%, yet the government has not asked them for a dime back. That is the story of the barons getting together to design a system that would serve them so well, the system we have inherited here, and that is part of the tradition of this place in more ways than one.<br /><br />We have ideas about how to end the clawbacks. We have proposals for a low-income CERB repayment amnesty. We have proposals on how to ensure that people in the arts and cultural sector and the tourism and hospitality industry can access the only benefit that would be left, which is the Canada worker lockdown benefit, in terms of a regular payment to people who are unable to work. The Liberals have laid out the industries in part 1 of the bill. All they have to do is say that anyone who earns their income in an industry named in part 1 of the bill will have access to the Canada worker lockdown benefit, whether there is a lockdown order in their part of the country not. The government already recognizes that those industries are in distress regardless of whether there is a lockdown order in effect.<br /><br />These are just some of the proposals that we will be putting on the table. If the government adopts them, it can see swift passage of the bill in this place, and that is what it will mean to leave no one behind.

==== Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) ====
[<sup>S-112</sup>] [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/11502057 2021-12-14 17:49] , In Support<br />
 Madam Speaker, Canadians are currently grappling with extremely serious economic challenges. They are paying more for food and housing, and they are having trouble finding work. At the same time, some employers are having trouble finding workers. Canada is at a crossroads. We want to figure out how to bring about a just post-pandemic economic recovery. We also have important questions about the climate crisis. We want to figure out how to bring about a just transition for the climate and for workers. What we need right now is leadership.<br /><br />The economic update was an opportunity to showcase the government's leadership, but what we got was a defence of the status quo. This is not an innocent status quo; it is a status quo that works very well for the wealthiest but makes the lives of ordinary working people more difficult.<br /><br />We wanted the government to propose solutions, but there are none to be found in the economic update.<br /><br />The NDP believes that when it comes to the big economic issues, it is very important that the basis of our analysis be the most financially vulnerable people, or the workers who have a little bit of money but are wondering if it is enough to pay all the bills, considering the pressures of inflation.<br /><br />We are at a crossroads in this country, just as we are in the world. Depending on the day, the Liberals will tell us that we are out of the pandemic, the economy is back to normal and everything is good, or, when it suits their purpose, they will tell us what most people already know to be true, which is that we are not out of the pandemic. Some things are better, but many things are still very bad.<br /><br />People are still looking to find their way, whether it is collectively, at the level of their country, province, city or community, or individually. They are looking to find how they will fit into what will become the new economy as we come out of the pandemic. To be sure, this is because of some of the pressures we are still facing around supply chains and other things that have been caused by the pandemic, but it is also an economy that was already going to change because of climate change.<br /><br />We have seen so much evidence. I look to my colleagues from B.C. who are seated around me. They know all too well the real cost of climate change, and the economic consequences and real financial cost of not dealing with climate change.<br /><br />Here we are, at that crossroads, trying to figure out what this recovery from the pandemic is going to look like, and how to transition into a sustainable economy that can mitigate, as much as possible, the impact of climate change.<br /><br />New Democrats believe that, in all of this pain and all of these challenges, is an opportunity to build the infrastructure and the framework for a more just economy and a better Canada. We need an economy that recognizes it is wrong to have an economy in which, and we just heard this from the Parliamentary Budget Officer last week, 25% of all the wealth produced in this country goes to just 1% of the population and where 40% of all the people in this country are asked to share just 1%. That was not always the case. That is getting worse and worse.<br /><br />When we see the government defending a status quo that is creating those kinds of outcomes, Canadians have to know it is not just defending 25% of the wealth going to 1%. It is defending the trend line that continues to see more of that wealth going to fewer people. While Canada's economic pie has been growing, the proportion that goes to the 1% at the top has been growing much faster, leaving less for the rest of us.<br /><br />As we come out of the pandemic to the extent that we have, which is not anywhere near as far as the government sometimes likes to pretend, and as we venture into this uncertain future with so many more extreme weather events as a result of climate change, we need to make sure we are getting the principles right that will ensure that everybody gets to partake in a prosperous future, not just the people who already own all of the important assets.<br /><br />The word there is “capitalism”. We have had less and less regulation of the market and less and less fair taxation, which has allowed the people who own assets to continue to own more and more. Unless there is a way to rein that in, eventually we will get to a point where what is shared among the rest of us is not enough for most of us.<br /><br />That is why I am very proud to be the finance critic for a party that is talking about a pandemic excess profits tax. The tax recognizes that while many businesses have suffered through the pandemic, some have done extraordinarily well compared with their pre-pandemic performance, and it would make sense to ask them to pay a bit more on that extra they have made to help with some of the things we need to get the rest of the way out of the pandemic and to build a just future.<br /><br />That is why I am proud to be the finance critic for a party that ran on imposing a 1% wealth tax on fortunes of over $20 million. That is not a lot of people, but it is a lot of money that could do a lot of good. It is money that would go to people who benefit from the investments that we all make in public infrastructure. It is right and good that, when they receive such a disproportionate amount of the benefit, they pay proportionally more to create infrastructure and to do things that protect people at the bottom.<br /><br />There has been a lot of talk in this place about inflation over the last three and a half weeks. The fact of the matter is that the money that went to the financially vulnerable is not what is driving inflation. It was not the CERB payments and it was not the wage subsidy payments. People bought groceries. They paid bills. They fixed their cars. The people who were on the wage subsidy got 75% of what they were used to making. I do not know how it would cause inflation when people have a 25% decrease in their salaries. Let us not pretend that the help that went to people who needed it was the cause of the inflation here. That matters because those folks are still hurting and they still need help. It is why it was wrong of the government to cut the CRB with just two days' notice.<br /><br />It is also why it is wrong for the Liberals to be dragging their heels on promises such as a Canada disability benefit. That is something that they promised a while ago now, and is something people living with disabilities who are not able to work need in order to be able to live life with dignity.<br /><br />It is why the government should be doing the same for seniors on the guaranteed income supplement. We have talked a bit about the clawbacks, but I want to talk about the fact that even when it is not being clawed back, the guaranteed income supplement does not provide enough for a person to live at the poverty line. It is still below the poverty line. That is all part and parcel of working toward a time in Canada when we can have a livable basic income for everyone who needs it. We got close with the CERB. It was an interesting time.<br /><br />That is why it is such an important moment. We could say that these were just temporary things: we are out of the worst of it now, and we are going to drop all these people like bricks again and get back to the status quo that led us to the point where 1% of people own 25% of the wealth. It could also be an opportunity to say that we learned how to do things differently and that it was an important moment in our history and, notwithstanding some of the very real problems with the way programs were delivered, the principle is an important lesson for our future.<br /><br />Today, the Liberals could have taken some real action on one of the structural things driving inflation in Canada right now, which is in the housing market. Anyone knows. Whether it is somebody trying to get into the housing market or parents who are contemplating the futures of their children, everyone is worried about the housing market, and we know that a record number of mortgages now in Canada are actually held by investors.<br /><br />There are things the government could seriously consider, such as a moratorium on allowing real estate investment trusts to acquire more property while the market is so hot. The government could create an acquisition fund so that non-profits in the business of creating social housing and other forms of affordable housing can compete with some of these investors in the market to snap up buildings and land as they become available. Those are some of the things it could do now to help bring down the temperature in the housing market and create some hope for Canadians for the future so that even if they cannot afford a home tomorrow, they know we are on a trajectory that will allow them or their children to afford a home in five to 10 years. There is nothing in the statement that talks about that. There is a little bit of poking around the edges, but we are in a difficult time that calls for real leadership and real measures.<br /><br />When we talk about affordability, what is one of the biggest cost pressures for Canada's seniors? It is the price of prescription drugs. The Liberals promised an answer to that as long ago as 1997. The temptation is to get tired of talking about it because we talk about it so much and nothing happens. However, that would be a victory for the Liberals, who have cynically promised it so often, and it would be a victory for the pharmaceutical industry, which would like nothing more than for the NDP to shut up about pharmacare so that it can get on with making money without having to worry that one day we are going to do right by Canadians, organize our purchasing and make sure that everyone is covered and they actually save money. I hope I get to see the day when we do that with dental care as well.<br /><br />When we talk about what to do to create employment and fight inflation, there are opportunities when it comes to the climate challenge as well. We ought to be out there helping people retrofit their homes to make them more efficient and transition the way they heat their homes so they get off fossil fuels. If we do this in the right way, particularly for lower-income households, they could realize savings in their monthly budgets. That is an investment we absolutely have to make if we will ever have a hope of realizing our emission reduction targets. It could provide some tangible financial relief to households that are struggling right now. What better time to do it than now? However, we do not see anything on this.<br /><br />This is also about committing to a large-scale, ambitious retrofit project and a real nation-building project that is not about building a pipeline but about building the other critical things we need, like a western power grid that would allow for solar and wind energy produced in Alberta and Saskatchewan to work collaboratively with the hydro energy we have on both ends of our western region. That could create a lot of jobs. An ambitious retrofit program, together with that, could create a work forecast that would allow employers in the trades to plan well into the future while working with the government to train a whole generation of tradespeople who are working on environmentally sustainable infrastructure and helping us reduce our emissions. They could have good, well-paying jobs that are building the future economy of Canada. What better time to do that than now? However, there is hardly a mention of the climate crisis in this economic statement.<br /><br />One would think it has not happened. There is much-needed money for our brothers and sisters in British Columbia who are hurting after the severe weather events there, but that is just a response to what has happened. As we heard earlier in the House, the only proactive thing the government talks about is coming up with another plan. I do not know how many times we will have to hear about the next great plan the Liberals will come up with to finally start reducing emissions while we are an embarrassment in the OECD with the highest emissions increases. Stop it with the plans. Pick something and do it. This has been researched to death.<br /><br />When we talk about inflation we are also talking about supply chains. In particular, we are talking about the exposure of supply chains not only to things like the pandemic, which we saw, but also to the climate crisis. We saw that in B.C. One of the inflationary pressures in Canada right now is the Port of Vancouver, which was decimated by the extreme weather events there.<br /><br />One solution that the government might adopt, when we talk about supply chains and trying to reduce the extent to which Canadians are exposed to that kind of international pressure, is to actually talk about things that we want to make here. We heard we had a hard time getting personal protective equipment and other essential medical goods during the pandemic. There were a lot of Canadian companies lining up to say they could do that work here. They would have loved nothing more than to train Canadians to do that work in their facilities.<br /><br />They said they could could scale up, but all they needed was for the government to choose to invest in them instead of giving more money to the multinational companies that have been offshoring their manufacturing for decades. They wanted the government to invest in them, in Canadian success stories, because they knew they could do it. However, that was not the path the government chose. There is nothing in here talking about how we could reshore some important manufacturing.<br /><br />I just went to Washington. They are contemplating things there, and Canada is going to be collateral damage in its efforts to reshore. We are at a disadvantage in a place like Washington because we cannot talk about our automotive strategy. We cannot talk about what we are going to do to ensure that future generations of Canadians get to work in a high-paying, highly unionized sector, which is incidentally not a coincidence, in Canada because we do not have a plan. Instead, we keep reacting to what other people are doing. That means the U.S. is going to continue to drive the agenda, and we are going to have to continue jumping up and down to get its attention to try to be at the table.<br /><br />What would be helpful would be to be able to say, “This is Canada's plan.” There is a lot of talk these days about producing batteries for electric vehicles. If Canada is going to get serious about that, we are going to need partners. China is knocking on the door. Germany is knocking on the door. The U.S. should be knocking on the door.<br /><br />I would love for the government to be able to show them a national automotive plan for Canada that is working and continuing our long-term partnership with the United States, as well as one that would see Canada partnering with China or Germany. That would allow us to say, “This is our preferred option, to continue the well-integrated automotive sector we have, so don't cut us out.” I believe that would have been a far more effective argument in Washington, but we refused to plan.<br /><br />I am from Winnipeg, where the aerospace industry is important, just as it is important in the province of Quebec and other areas. We do not have a national plan for that. We saw our government scramble in the pandemic, not knowing really what to do. Aside from the wage subsidy, which the Liberals were unfortunately not open to taking advice on how to close the loopholes so it ended up being abused in a number of ways, there was no sense of urgency that it was important that Canada maintain passenger air service, even though we are one of the largest countries in the world, with the most distance to travel.<br /><br />We even need it for this place to work, and for people to be represented in the House of Commons, so each part of the country requires a well-functioning passenger air service. That is a fundamental strategic asset for Canada, yet the government had no plan and continues to have no plan. There are the one-offs of doling out money here and there, but there is no cohesive strategy for how such a integral sector will be maintained and how its benefits will be maximized.<br /><br />Those are just some of our reflections on this side of the House about the fall economic statement. As I think members can tell, the real problem with it is that it is not unlike the Speech from the Throne. We had this election because the government said that we were at a pivotal point in our history, there were big decisions to be made that would go above and beyond what we were already doing in the House of Commons, and it had to get a mandate, which is meh.<br /><br />That is what we got out of that $600-million election that nobody, except for the Prime Minister, wanted. We saw it in the Speech from the Throne, and we have now seen it in this so-called fiscal update. It is just not good enough for the moment we find ourselves in, when more Canadians are struggling to get by while people at the top are taking a larger share of the economic pie. It is not good enough when Canada is a laggard in reducing its emissions and our housing market is getting out of control. The government has no real proposals about what to do about it all.<br /><br />Let us look at other countries. New Zealand, for instance, has brought in a policy stating that people who already own a home will need a larger down payment if they purchase a second home, and so on and so forth. This is to discourage people who are in the financial position from snapping up properties and ensure more people are able to acquire a family home.<br /><br />That is just one example of a government that is clearly serious about doing something and is being creative. We see some creative work at the municipal level in the city of Vancouver by the mayor, who is a former NDP MP. He is doing some interesting work in trying to figure out how to enable more density on residential lots, and not so developers can take all that money. They will get some of it.<br /><br />The guys at the top always seem to be worried they will not make any money. There is a lot of money to be made while one pays one's fair share. We are not talking about them not making any money, we are talking about them making a fair amount of money and ensuring they are reinvesting in the communities and the infrastructure that allows them to make that money in the first place. It is about ensuring that the people who live in the communities around their developments are able to live in dignity even if they cannot buy the premium apartment on the top floor. That is what we are talking about.<br /><br />I think most Canadians can get behind that vision for Canada, but it is not one that will happen spontaneously on its own. It is one that will take some leadership. It is one that will take good public administration and good public policy instead of the kind of chaotic mess we have seen over the last number of weeks with a government that can hardly get its own legislation through the House.<br /><br />We are here to try to hold the government to account. We are here until we are the government, which I hope happens soon, to try to help its members be their best selves. It can make a big difference in the lives of a lot of Canadians. We see that with the guaranteed income supplement. We have an announcement today that is the result of a lot of public pressure. It was not a negotiated solution. We know that because it is not the solution we proposed.<br /><br />However, it is some kind of solution, but we have yet to see the details. We are hoping it is going to actually help and it is going to help quickly, but we need more. I wish the Liberals would stop hanging on to it for the big reveal. Some people are living in their cars, waiting for that reveal, when they would much rather be in a home.<br /><br />Let us get past the suspense and the buildup and let us get to the project of getting those people back in a home, as they were just four months ago before the government decided callously to claw back their GIS benefit.<br /><br />That is why this is a very dissatisfying economic statement. For Canadians listening, if they do not take anything else away from this speech, there are people in this place who are thinking about real actions the government could take. We are not all just here to blow steam. We are also here to do a real job and to try to find the policies that will find their way to them and make a concrete difference in their lives. We are here to continue to apply that pressure and ensure those things really happen instead of passing by in a sound clip on the news and then people thinking the issue is settled.<br /><br />We are here to remind the government these issues are not settled. They will not be settled until there is real action. That is what we are here to push for, and we will keep pushing. We will keep pushing for some of these concrete things to be in the Liberals' budget. They missed the opportunity on the Speech from the Throne and they missed it in the fall economic statement. Let us be damn sure to have some of it in the budget.

==== Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre) ====
[<sup>S-113</sup>] [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/11505231 2021-12-15 15:17] , In Support<br />
 Mr. Speaker, Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. It does not have to be this way.<br /><br />Last summer's election call put a halt to Bill C-35, which would have created a Canada disability benefit, a guaranteed basic income for Canadians with a disability. While I was glad to see the Liberals promise to move forward with this benefit in their most recent election platform, it was not in the throne speech or in yesterday's economic update.<br /><br />When will the Liberals do what they said they would do? Are they willing to fast-track the design and implementation of the Canada disability benefit so our neighbours living in poverty do not have to struggle through another three years?

==== Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre) - Introduction Bill C-223 ====
[<sup>S-114</sup>] [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/11509077 2021-12-16 10:17] , Introduction<br />
 moved for leave to introduce Bill C-223, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.<br /><br />She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to introduce the national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income act.<br /><br />I would like to start by thanking the member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona for seconding my bill, my riding of Winnipeg Centre, the Basic Income Canada Network, Basic Income Manitoba, Coalition Canada, the Basic Income Canada Youth Network,<br /><br />Senator Kim Pate, former Senator Hugh Segal and so many other anti-poverty activists across the country who contributed to the development of this bill.<br /><br />As we continue to find ways to make it through the pandemic, we know that those who were already left behind are even further behind. This bill is in response to calls to implement a guaranteed livable basic income from indigenous, territorial, provincial and municipal jurisdictions that clearly recognize the need to modernize our social safety net. A GLBI is not a panacea, but a way forward to modernize our social safety net in addition to current and future government programs and supports. It would ensure that all people have the necessary supports and resources to live with dignity, security, respect and human rights as affirmed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<br /><br />I once again would like to thank my constituents and the basic income movement for their support. This is a people's movement.

==== Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston) ====
[<sup>S-115</sup>] [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/11509077 2021-12-16 10:19] , Curtailment of debate
 Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.<br /><br />I thought my colleague from Kingston and the Islands had an interesting point, although I did not agree with him entirely. He said that we ought to be succinct when introducing private members' bills, and he then cited something he thought was inappropriate in a succinct comment. I do think it is reasonable for members to give an explanation of the content of the bill. I noticed with the last bill, and I have no objection to the bill itself, the member did start by giving a long list of thanks. That would seem to fall outside of succinct.<br /><br />However, I want to request from you, if you are willing to do it, to perhaps get back to us at some point with a more fulsome description of what you think succinct ought to be. The most precious commodity in the House is time. We do not want to deprive those who are introducing private members' bills of the ability to explain their bills, but I do worry we may see a sort of great inflation and expansion of the time going to each bill, which would ultimately result in less time for other business.

==== John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil) ====
[<sup>S-116</sup>] [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/11509077 2021-12-16 12:37] , Rejection
 Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something the parliamentary secretary just said. He talked about this piece of legislation and its intent, in his words, to create “disposable income” for people. We have gone from providing supports to people to protect their lives and livelihoods to now providing them with disposable income.<br /><br />I guess the new Liberal economic recovery plan is to use government money to pay people to go out and buy things instead of what this bill is intended for. I am just wondering this. Did the hon. member pick up on that, and does he have any comments on it?

==== Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) ====
[<sup>S-117</sup>] [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/11509077 2021-12-16 12:38] , Rebuttal<br />
 Madam Speaker, I imagine my Conservative colleague will take some solace in the fact that what the member for Winnipeg North said was not true. In fact, the government has taken the advice of the Conservatives and cancelled the Canada recovery benefit program. It has created a Canada worker lockdown benefit that so far has not applied anywhere in the country. Despite the program being retroactive, nobody will be able to qualify for it retroactively. I regret to say it may apply in some cases going forward because of omicron.<br /><br />I was at a press conference earlier. My colleague for Winnipeg Centre has done some excellent work on the idea of a guaranteed livable basic income and has brought a bill forward to the House that I look forward to debating and passing. When we give people who are already living below the poverty line enough income to live with dignity, we are not giving them disposable income. We are giving them enough for rent and groceries.<br /><br />There are a lot of people who could use more financial support who are not going to get disposable income out of it. What they are going to get is a bit of dignity and the ability to have a home, to depend on that home in the future and to not pay rent at the expense of knowing where they are going to get money for medication and groceries.