Canada is a country with no shortage of government programs aimed at assisting individuals and families in need. Decade after decade during the 20th century Canada built the architecture of a welfare state to eradicate social and political injustices. Bits and pieces of policy at the federal and provincial level now make up a fortress of legislation to address the basic needs of individuals and groups.
For example, at the federal level in 1942 Unemployment Insurance would become Employment Insurance, followed by Family Allowance Act 1944, Old Age Security 1951, 1954 Disabled Persons Act, 1956 Hospital Insurance, Old Age Security Act, 1965, 1966, Canada Assistance Plan (grants to provinces), 1967 Guaranteed Income Supplement, 1979 Child Tax Credit.
Then there are all of the provincial programs that run collaterally with those of the national government.
The federal, provincial and municipal programs that regularly address the problem of need are almost too numerous to mention. All provinces offer a battery of programs that to some extent address individual need but together they do not resolve these matters on the ground level.
For example, Cape Breton has carried the burden of one/third of its population in poverty for decades. We are an island that cannot pull its own people out of poverty under the economic status quo.
The recent flood of federal emergency funding targeted at cushioning the deadly impact of the pandemic on the economy is providing yet another layer of supports to address essential needs for families and individuals.
The problem is no current government program operating alone really goes far enough to resolve the problem of basic need. Nor do these programs lower poverty levels among vulnerable groups. If people qualify for any of these programs, most recipients never quite get enough money to reconcile their minimum requirements in life.
So a huge swath of Canada's population at various stages of their lives fall short of satisfying these basic needs. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is put forward as a comprehensive legislative package - an efficient strategy that possibly displaces or eliminates most costly federal and provincial programs.
The recent flood of federal emergency funding targeted at cushioning the deadly impact of the pandemic on the economy is providing yet another layer of supports to address essential needs for families and individuals.
It creates a new working class with income to be spent and taxed in every community and under every government. It is a redistribution of wealth not considered before.
As originally conceived, the UBI would have no needs test or means test. It would not apply only to one deserving group or class. Everybody gets it as if it is a social charter benefit.
First considered in 1967 during Canada's Centenary as an income guarantee for seniors the Senate recommended it in the Croll Report. Another Senate committee considered it in its fight against poverty in 2009.
Just as pharmacare is not yet a part of Canada's public health-care program, the UBI is not yet a part of Canada's anti-poverty strategy. We came close to a new policy under Stephen Harper who advocated a $2,000 a month “crisis basic income” for everyone. The Business Council of Alberta called for a $2,500 per month individual allocation.
Supporters of the idea in government and academia see it as a “structural instrument” that would stabilize the economy, especially in this unprecedented period of massive unemployment, business bankruptcies and economic stagnation.
It would elevate the economy to the status of ‘full’ employment with new tax revenues for all governments. Economic stimulation would flow across the country. There would be less job loss, homelessness, petty crime, family conflict, food insecurity and divorce. It would also diminish the growth and presence of the underground economy.
There will be push-back. Picture Prime Minister Justin Trudeau once again descending on his podium to make yet another multi-billion announcement for a UBI on top of all the new emergency measures just recently announced.
Is someone going to call the national banker for a reaction? As we know our current Debt/GDP ratio is a staggering 101 per cent. We owe at least as much money as we are worth and then some. Taxpayers have a right to ask how they will pay for all of this and for how long?
Dr. Jim Guy, author and professor emeritus of political science at Cape Breton University, can be reached for comment at [email protected].
