Advocates take their case for a guaranteed basic income to the Senate

Advocates calling on Canada to create a guaranteed basic income pushed back on what one senator called the "myths and stereotypes" about such a program during a Senate committee meeting on Tuesday.

The Red Chamber is working through Bill S-233. If passed, it would require the finance minister to develop a "national framework" for implementing a guaranteed livable basic income (GLBI) program throughout Canada.

The legislation is sponsored by Sen. Kim Pate. An identical bill has been submitted to the House of Commons by NDP MP Leah Gazan. Neither bill would actually implement a basic income program.

"There's a stigma about poor people and about assisting people — that we will give people a handout but we won't give them a leg up out of poverty," Pate said.

Members of the Senate's standing committee on national finance had questions about the effectiveness of a basic income program, particularly its impact on the Canadian economy and government spending.

According to a 2021 analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), the overall cost of a guaranteed basic income program would rise from $85 billion in 2021-2022 to $93 billion in 2025-2026.

To calculate these figures, the PBO studied Ontario's basic income pilot project, which lasted from April 2017 until July 2018, when the government of Premier Doug Ford cut it. 

Under the pilot, participants aged between 18 and 64 received between $16,989 and $24,027 per year, with an additional $6,000 per year for people with disabilities. For every dollar a recipient made in employment earnings, they would lose $0.50 from the basic income program.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux told senators that Canada might need to consider reducing social assistance at the provincial level, or tax credits like the GST credit, in order to fund a program like that at the national level.

Proponents of GLBI pointed to the universality of such a program, arguing that more targeted approaches to handing out money may not reach everyone who needs financial assistance.

"The more targeted programs you introduce, the more gaps you introduce into the system," said Evelyn Forget, a professor of economics and community health sciences at the University of Manitoba. "The more gaps there are, the more opportunities there are for people to slide through."

Senators also questioned whether a basic income would create a disincentive for Canadians to work.

According to the PBO analysis, GLBI would have a very minor impact on the Canadian labour supply. Researchers found the total hours worked would only fall 1.3 per cent at the national level.

Former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne, who oversaw the province's basic income pilot project, told senators she had multiple conversations with recipients who were "more motivated and more able to get into the workplace." Unfortunately, she added, there's no official statistical evidence to back her claims because the program was cut before it was scheduled to end.

But some evidence does appear to corroborate Wynne's claims. According to a survey called Southern Ontario's Basic Income Experience, researchers found nearly 80 per cent of respondents were somewhat or much more motivated to find a better paying job.

At the same time, 37.5 per cent of respondents who worked before and during the pilot found higher-paying jobs.

Jessie Golem, a photographer and recipient under the province's pilot project, attended the Senate meeting as an observer. The Hamilton, Ont. resident told CBC News that she was working four jobs and still living paycheque to paycheque until the pilot began.

She said Ontario's program allowed her to drop some of the jobs and focus on growing a business. She said she calculated she would be on the pilot for only two out of the planned three years as she continued to earn employment income.

"I would have been making too much money," she said.

She said she's now trying to restart her videography business but is struggling with funding. To her, a national GLBI program would mean "the freedom to be able to do and pursue what I want to do and build that better life for myself."

"Let's do better," Golem added. "We ought to do better and it's our duty and our responsibility in this country."