Mr.

President, our bill is we can implement balanced universal income wages for everyone, no matter what their
class is. Oh, and you can share your arguments as well. Yeah, your speech. Our party is for the bill because it can
reduce poverty rate by 50%. Reducing poverty could also reduce child poverty and help the children, for
example, better mental health and education for children. Around 200,000 families and 550,000 children will not
be in poverty if the UBI isn't implemented. Another reason we are for the bill is it can reduce income inequality.
UBI can help people who are getting paid unfairly and help the gender pay gap. Women that are working full-
time and part-time are being paid 9 cents for every dollar men make. In conclusion, UBI should be implemented
because it can help solve poverty and make lives better for the ones who are suffering from poverty. It can also
reduce inequality for people who are getting paid fairly. Honorable member James Bizon. Hello, honorable
members and men and women presidents. Today I'm going to talk about the creation of a universal living wage.
The creation of a universal living wage refers to the establishment of a universal living wage system that raises
the median wage to a sustainable level to reflect changes in the cost of living. The creation of a universal living
wage is to raise the median wage to a sustainable level, which can reduce corporate expenses and improve
economic efficiency. It can also ensure that every worker can receive sufficient wages to maintain basic living
standards and improve the quality of life. My first argument is an increase in the median wage will help reduce
business expenses and improve economic efficiency. Many people are forced to find alternative jobs because
their wages are insufficient or they struggle to make ends meet due to inflation. But on the contrary, people with
relatively high wages and those who can afford the higher expenses will stay with their employers and many
people often ignore this. The cost of hiring new employees is also very expensive and this costs a total of up to
40% of employees' annual salary. When wages increase, professional ability increases because employee
absenteeism and presentism decrease. Productivity increases and employee volatility increases. In economics,
this phenomenon is known as the efficiency rate theory. When the median wage for warehouse workers at a large
company increases by $1, the number of boxes per hour increases, resulting in an overall increase in productivity
and profitability. Higher wages enhance brand image. When companies pay about a median wage, they directly
contribute to the communities in which they operate. Community members spread the word and drive brand
engagement at every level. For my second argument, it can maintain legal standards, improve quality of life, and
meet the most basic needs. The main purpose of the median wage is to provide workers with a level of income
sufficient to meet their basic needs. It prevents extremely low wages and helps reduce property and income
inequality within society. By setting a median wage, the government aims to promote decent working conditions
and provide workers with a degree of economic security. A new report shows Nova Scotia's median wage is
making life increasingly difficult for people as raising costs for basic necessities continues to outpace wage
increases. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' annual median wage report calculates how much two
adult working full-time must earn to support two children and live a decent quality of life. The median wage
calculation reflects costs of June 2023 and takes into account government transport added to household income
such as child benefit and reductions taken out such as tax and employment insured premiums. Wages should be
sufficient to allow families to provide, serve, financially, treat, support the healthy development of their children,
and participate in social, civic, and cultural communities. The report says working people should work to live,
not live to work. Therefore, we, the Conservative Party, support this bill because any increases in the median
wage will help reduce corporate expenditures, improve economic efficiency, maintain living standards, improve
the quality of life, and meet those basic needs. Honourable Member Christiane Freeland Good morning
Honourable Members of Parliament and Madam President. My name is Christiane Freeland and I have the
honour to be your Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Let's talk about the topic at hand, Bill C-223.
This bill, once passed, will mark a pivotal moment in our nation's history. It lays the foundation for a system not
based on race, abilities, or cultural background, but a system allowing everyone to be successful. Bill C-223
develops a national framework for a guaranteed, livable basic income. This framework embodies our
commitment to ensuring every Canadian's right to financial security and stability. I endorse Bill C-223 since it is
a step in composing our shared vision of Canada where no one needs to suffer the weight of financial stress, and
it is the embodiment of our collective belief in a more inclusive and sustainable future. In my role as Minister of
Finance, I recognize the transformative power of this bill. It is a promise to Canadians, a promise of financial
is because it addresses the urgent need for economic equality in our society. According to recent studies, Bill C-
223 decreases the income inequality in Canada, which has been steadily increasing for the past few decades.
With the top 10% of earners now holding 60% of the country's wealth. By implementing a guaranteed livable
basic income, we can bridge this gap and provide a safety net for those who need it most. During the 1960s, the
Canadian government ran an experiment to see the effects implemented by implementing a universal living
wage. While not a nationwide initiative, several provinces and territories conducted a pilot project to assess the
potential impact of a universal living wage on citizens. One of the most notable experiments in this era was the
Minkum Project, which took place in the town of Dolphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. This initiative provided a
guaranteed income to eligible residents, regardless of their employment status or race. The results were
promising, showing that the program reduced poverty and improved overall well-being. More recently, the
province of Ontario launched an Ontario basic income pilot. This project aims to assess the potential benefits of
universal living wage on individuals and communities. As you can see, we have more than enough data on how
implementing this would make it sustainable. These studies have provided valuable insights on how a UBI could
impact society. They have also demonstrated that providing a guaranteed income can have a positive effect on
poverty reduction, health outcomes, and overall well-being. Additionally, they sparked important conversation on
the potential societal shifts that could result from such a policy, including the potential changes in work patterns
and the overall economy. By implementing Bill C-223, we can reduce the 37% of Canadians who are currently
experiencing financial stress and the 17.4% of Canadians who are experiencing struggling versions of poverty.
So join me in helping the people that we represent here in Parliament to be set free from financial stress. Thank
you. Honourable Member Nikki Ashton. Hello, Mr. President. Hello, honourable members of Parliament. My
name is Nikki Ashton and I am the Critic for National Revenue and the Official Language. Nikki is in
disagreement with this bill because of its vagueness in the original statement. This statement was to be
implementing balanced universal wages for everyone no matter what their class. It was the one sentence that they
stated. Does that mean that doctors who spend lots of money and time on their education trying to get a very
demanding job, and then you have people who work at McDonald's who don't get a unique job and they do not
need to get money getting a job, still get the same pay grade? This would mean that everybody would want to be
a fast food worker because, well, they don't have to try hard to get a huge sum of money or just a decent sum of
money. Then, if this does become a law, we'd run out of very important jobs that are hard to get because there is
an easier alternative. The whole society would fall apart. It takes approximately four years of undergraduate
studies, followed by four years of medical school, along with the possibility of three to eight years in residency
and internship programs. You also can't forget about the high school courses you need to take and the grades that
you need to upkeep just to get into the university. This can take approximately almost a quarter million dollars.
You need to be a fast food worker, you need to have a diminutive education requirements, and on the job training,
a rudimentary communication skills. You can spend zero dollars getting this job, and yet you're willing to pay
doctors the same amount as fast food workers. People who go to medical school would already be in deep debt,
and they would need a high-paying job that they diligently worked for just so that they can pay it off. To make
this bill, you need to lower the pay of the doctor to make it somewhat even in fast food workers' pay, which you
would then need to pay higher. High school credits for a basic doctor job would probably be grade 12 biology,
grade 12 calculus and vectors, grade 12 chemistry, and grade 12 English. And there are many different types of
doctors with many different types of requirements. You must keep your marks in between 80% and 100% for
safety reasons. And in university, the grade point average must be a minimum of 3.6 out of 4. There's a lot of
learning skills you need to train to be a doctor, hence why the schooling is so long. To be a fast food worker, all
you need are the basic human skills like communication, and on-job training takes around one to three months to
be considered up to speed. When you compare the work ethic of these two jobs, it is completely arbitrary to pay
these two jobs evenly. Doctors get paid around $100 per hour, while fast food workers get around $60 per hour.
This bill would create more worry and more stress among the citizens of Ontario, and it would cause harm to our
citizens. It is a fact, a fact, that in this bill worldwide, every adult would receive approximately $1,000 per
month, no matter the job. How are adults, families, going to live off a budget of $1,000 or to $2,000 per month,
with a housing crisis and mortgage payments, inflation, unemployment, taxes, and being another few problems?
property, food, utilities, transportation, and maybe schooling, maybe some extracurriculars or recreational
activities. For one person, that would be around $3,400 a month. And for a family, it would be around $5,600.
This law would be an impossible budget for everyone to accept, and the already needlessly rich people would
already be fined. And this bill would only cause more problems for us to solve. Some more statistics to prove my
point. People spend around $25,000 on basic property, not counting the property tax. For one person, the average
for them to spend on food is around $250 to $550 per month. The average cost of a utility bill in Ontario is $320.
For transportation, for one person, they will spend around 15% of their money on transportation, roughly around
$850. Monthly expenses range from $3,700 for one person to $8,000 for a family of five or more. People spend
around $4,000 for tuition and $6,000 per academic year to live on school property. And families spend around
$1,000 per year for extracurriculars. There are many more pragmatic ways to make jobs better. This bill would
only hurt many people, and many more people would be suffering from poverty and death. The cost of living is
simply too high for what universal living wages would give the citizens of Canada. And it is not fair for the
people who work hard to get a higher education to get paid significantly less than what they are due. Thank you.
Honourable Member, Christopher Freeman. I just would like to comment on my colleague, the Honourable Nikki
Ashton. Perhaps they did not understand the bill. Bill C-223 is not designed to replace the existing labour market,
but it only provides a safe net for citizens who are experiencing poverty and financial stress. It is not designed to
fully replace and equalize everyone's incomes. It is only there to help those in need and those who need it. Thank
you. Honourable Member, Seamus O'Regan. I will come back to you. Honourable Member, Seamus O'Regan.
Hello Honourable Members and Madam President. My name is Seamus O'Regan, and I am the Minister of
Labour for the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party is trying to pass a bill that would create a balanced income
for all. That is equal to all types of living classes. As the Minister of Labour, I am for this bill. Because I believe
that no matter where you live, what your job is, race, sexuality or gender, everyone should make enough money
to keep up with the ever-changing world. I am for this bill because it is important to consider the living wage of
individuals needs to match the prices of inflation. Having a livable income would address problems with
unhealthy foods and food insecurities. Once citizens are healthy, they would use government health sources less,
giving us more money to spend. If citizens have a tight budget, they cannot spend their money on healthy food
sources, forcing them to buy fast foods or lower quality foods, which could lead to health problems such as
diabetes or even certain types of cancers. If someone is rich or poor, they will have an equal amount of money
being given to them by the government. This would lead to more equality among citizens and would stop
homelessness, mostly. Now, I did say that I am for this bill, but I would also like to list some cons. There are
reasons that I would be against this bill, because it might affect governments and businesses. If we were to
provide a universal living wage to everyone in the country, that would affect the amount of money we could
spend on government, on this country, to keep it stable. Giving money to 38.25 million Canadians would lessen
the amount of money put towards military, health programs, etc. If we did give money to all people in Canada,
people would not need to work. Businesses would lose employees and end up going out of business. In
conclusion, I believe that this is a good idea overall. Our people deserve this universal living wage. I believe that
we can work in a way where we can have enough money to give to them and our government programs. Going
back to Christina's argument, saying that it would support families coming into Canada was not exactly specified
in the bill. It should have been mentioned, as it was mostly covered in your point of the bill. We have the power
to change the bill. We can edit the bill and we can change it. It even supports people who are immigrating to
Canada and need that basic income, because they might not have the money to have a stable life. They can't get a
job because they don't have the proper education. This bill will provide a safety net and provide time for them to
get a proper education and live a stable life. I'm going to add on to what you were saying. If there are any
clarifications or revisions you would like to make to the bill, you are free to state those changes here. I will write
them down so we have a cohesive final bill based on the changes you would like to make. Thank you. You are
required to respond to the questions or respond to your peers, or bring up any points to be discussed. That is your
critical thinking mark. I believe we should edit the bill so it includes people who are immigrating to Canada and
need that financial safety net. Does anyone want to agree or disagree with those revisions? This is your critical
thinking mark. Responding to other people. Thank you.