THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 8, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day with videoconference at 9:04 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-233, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
I wish to welcome all of the senators, as well as all the Canadians watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Claude Carignan. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Forest: Welcome to all our guests. Éric Forest, independent senator from the Gulf senatorial division, in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good morning. Clément Gignac from Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Good morning and welcome. Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Kingston: Welcome. Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, honourable senators.
Today, we are continuing our study on Bill S-233, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, which was referred to this committee by the Senate of Canada on April 18, 2023.
We are pleased to have with us today by videoconference Niigaan Sinclair, Professor at the University of Manitoba. Good morning, Mr. Sinclair. We are also hearing from Guy Caron, former member of Parliament and current Mayor of the City of Rimouski. He is also participating by videoconference, as he didn’t feel like coming to see his former loves in Ottawa. Finally, joining us in person is Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.
Welcome. I invite you to make a brief presentation, starting with Mr. Sinclair, who will be followed by Mr. Caron and Mr. Roebuck.
Mr. Sinclair, go ahead.
[English]
Niigaan Sinclair, Professor, University of Manitoba, as an individual: [Indigenous language spoken]. It is nice to be here. I just greeted you in my language from here in Treaty 1 territory. I’m an Anishinaabe from Peguis First Nation. I am also a very proud Treaty 1 member here in Man-into-wahpaow, or Wînipêk, which is, of course, now known as the city of Winnipeg but refers to a much bigger series of seven First Nations, several hundred Métis communities and, of course, all of our different Inuit relations who are now part of our territory as well. Meegwetch for having me, and I’m looking forward to speaking today.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Caron, you have the floor.
Guy Caron, Former Member of Parliament and Current Mayor, City of Rimouski, As an individual: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you for welcoming me. This does bring back fond memories. I’m sorry I can’t be with you in person. The lack of air connections between Rimouski, Montreal and Ottawa, which didn’t exist when I was an MP, unfortunately prevents me from making the trip. I’m very happy to be here with you on Zoom to talk about the guaranteed livable income. I will read my presentation in French, but I can answer questions in French or in English.
In 1989, the House of Commons unanimously approved NDP leader Ed Broadbent’s motion to eliminate poverty in Canada by the year 2000, so from 1989 to 2000.
By 2000, there had been as much poverty, if not more, than there had been 11 years earlier. Was this an exercise in virtue? Perhaps, but tackling poverty should be a priority for any industrialized or post-industrialized nation with the collective wealth to do so.
Poverty is a huge waste, a shameless waste of human resources. We are wasting the talent of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who will never be able to contribute positively to society because of their condition, or become artists, entrepreneurs or volunteers, doing what they love to do in this one life they have to live because of the fear of becoming poor. They can be poor. If they are poor now, they can’t get out of the spiral of poverty, because day-to-day survival takes precedence over their aspirations or because the stigma they suffer prevents them from flourishing.
I am an economist. For a long time, I rejected the notion of a basic income as unrealistic, but I no longer do. I do not believe in a universal basic income model, the political or economic difficulties of which have been amply demonstrated, but I firmly believe that a guaranteed and unconditional minimum income is possible and would at the very least tend towards the elimination of the most abject poverty.
In 2017, I became, to my knowledge, the first candidate for the leadership of a major political party to propose the implementation of such a basic income. It was at the heart of my platform.
The model I proposed was not universal, but unconditional. It was a guarantee by the federal government that every household in Canada should have an income at least equivalent to the low‑income cut-off, which is determined by the size of the household and the size of the municipality the household is part of.
Households with incomes above the low-income cut-off would not receive a benefit. Those below the cut-off could apply, much as employment insurance claimants do, to receive a top-up benefit to bring them up to the low-income cut-off.
Of course, if household conditions changed and income exceeded the low-income cut-off, it would be up to that household to declare the change in circumstances, as is currently done for employment insurance, and any overpayments could be clawed back when the next tax return is filed.
It is an illusion to think that such a program can be delivered at zero cost by eliminating social programs and tax measures. Some of them, which are already a form of basic income, such as Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, could be eliminated. Similarly, employment insurance would become obsolete, at least for benefits below the low-income cut-off.
This would be a tax measure, which would minimize the possibility of confrontation with the provinces. However, the provinces would have to take measures to limit cost increases, and thus minimize the risk of inflation. Rent control comes to mind, among other things, as a measure that could help limit inflation and ensure that the provinces do not abuse the system by taking advantage of this guaranteed income.
This proposal of mine was attacked by both my left and my right. The argument from the left was that the elimination of social programs accompanying the creation of this guaranteed minimum income could increase poverty. A person with a disability would have to bear more expenses than a person with the same income but without a disability. This was a justifiable and legitimate objection. A guaranteed minimum income must indeed take these realities into account.
The criticism from the right was that the guaranteed minimum income would deter people from working. I’m sure you’re aware of this. However, among all the pilot projects that have been carried out, there is no clear evidence that it is a serious disincentive to work. I was reading the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s presentation, which talked about a potential reduction of 1.5% in the targets that a guaranteed minimum income would achieve; we’re talking about a minimal impact. There is no evidence that a guaranteed minimum income would encourage laziness. On the other hand, it could enable people to take the time to find a job better suited to their abilities, but also to their aspirations, rather than a poorly paid job in which they would feel trapped.
In fact, a well-designed guaranteed minimum income would eliminate the welfare wall; it is a disincentive that currently exists, is very real and prevails in many well-intentioned social programs. A guaranteed basic income would be much simpler to administer, eliminating a certain amount of bureaucratic red tape, and allowing these resources to be redirected to more productive use.
Such a program would be expensive, of course. I estimated the costs at $30 billion to $40 billion per year in 2017, before the COVID pandemic. During the pandemic, we had a situation where the Canada Emergency Response Benefit helped millions of Canadians get through the crisis. It was a more conditional form of basic income, but I believe that it is possible to achieve ambitious goals such as eliminating poverty. However, to do so we have to invest the necessary resources.
Yet, we are currently experiencing a poverty crisis. I saw Ms. Jao’s testimony, which referred to a study carried out by a Harvard economist, Sendhil Mullainathan. He showed that poverty leads to a 13-point drop in intelligence quotient, IQ. This does not mean that because you are poor you are less intelligent. What it does mean is that if you’re poor, a lot more of your mental resources are devoted to simple day-to-day survival. So there’s a lot less room in our brains — a bandwidth analogy was used — to be productive at work or think about being a productive member of society.
This loss of IQ is the equivalent of having to work the next day constantly without having slept the night before. Poverty has human costs, costs to the individual and costs to society. People can become poor because of bad choices they have made and, very often, it is poverty that leads to the bad choices they subsequently make. As a society, we need to be able to give ourselves the tools to fight poverty and recover all this lost potential, not only for the individual, but also for society. That’s why Bill S-233 would enable us to study the possibilities for an effective program and to meet the objectives set by the government. It would be a step in the right direction to replace social programs that are targeted but cumbersome to administer. There would indeed be costs to all this, but in the perspective of eliminating abject poverty, these costs should be studied and taken seriously. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Caron.
Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime: Thank you and good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me here this morning.
[English]
We’re on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people. On the day of truth and reconciliation, we came together to honour the enduring presence and resilience of First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities.
Calls for Justice 4.5 and 16.20 of the final report from the National Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls call on the Government of Canada to establish a guaranteed annual livable income. I’m happy to be here to see how Canada will honour its commitment to reconciliation.
The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime is an independent resource for victims and survivors in Canada. We’re a federal agency operating at arm’s length from the Department of Justice and reporting directly to the minister as a special adviser. Part of our mandate is to ensure that policy‑makers are aware of systemic issues that negatively affect victims and survivors of crime and that the government understands its obligations under the quasi-constitutional provisions of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
Intimate partner violence is an epidemic in Canada. I’m going to read a quote from a survivor who was part of a study with my research team prior to my appointment as ombud in 2022. She said:
I left an abusive relationship. I couldn’t leave the kids [at home] safely. I stopped working. My husband tried to kill me. I had to find a way to get out while keeping the kids safe and getting them out too. I did everything to keep them safe, including leaving everything behind. We left with the clothing on our backs. I wasn’t even clothed properly because I wasn’t allowed access to proper clothing. My husband left me with 14 cents.
You have cupboards to put your food in, and I keep mine tucked and hidden in my vehicle with my kids. We went to eating once a day. Kids always had food. I went without, but they always had at least one meal a day. My vehicle has been ticketed so much.
. . . because I had the courage and strength to say enough is enough.
People of all genders experience partner violence, but women are disproportionately affected. In Canada, more than 100,000 women experience partner violence every year. Indigenous women and women with disabilities are at a higher risk because of systemic inequality. Many survivors experience a concussion or a traumatic brain injury, which can complicate and extend recovery.
Intimate partner violence disproportionately pulls women out of the workforce. Many have to start their lives over without access to the resources they need to secure first and last month’s rent, buy new clothes for themselves and their children, toys, technology, food, school supplies, furniture and transportation, and pay legal fees for ongoing custody battles in family court.
Our office recently received a complaint from a survivor who experienced coercive and controlling behaviour. Her partner lied to police and social services and took their children. Her primary income was the Canada Child Benefit. She now owes thousands of dollars to Revenue Canada because she received the benefit without having access to her children.
In 2021, a study by the Canadian Centre for Women’s Empowerment found that 95% of victim survivors in their sample had experienced economic abuse and financial manipulation from their partner. Many abusers acquired debts in their partner’s name to limit the credit score they would need if they escaped.
The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights guarantees victims of crime a right to protection from intimidation and retaliation. We have to do better. We have to take action to prevent femicide, support gender equality and help people who have to start over because of violence.
I believe we owe it to victims and survivors to develop a framework that will guarantee financial independence, safety and dignity. I recommend that the framework be very developed in consultation with people who will access the benefit.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Roebuck.
Mr. Sinclair, we now return to your opening presentation.
[English]
Mr. Sinclair: Meegwetch, thank you. I apologize. I thought we were just doing a round of introductions. Obviously, you can tell that I’m outside of the Ottawa world when it comes to understanding the procedures of this kind of work. I’m going to talk today about two things.
First, the notion of a guaranteed basic livable income isn’t something that just comes out of the air. It isn’t a random, arbitrary idea. As Canadians, if we were to go around in a circle, for example, and ask ourselves what it is that is Canadian, we would come up with things such as democracy, health care, multiculturalism and free speech. What we would do is analyze and ask the question: Where did those things come from? The answer would inevitably come that these did not come from Europe. These were not ideas that came from Europeans who arrived, from societies that were highly xenophobic, that were based in knowledges, that were centrally located, particularly with the king and the Pope or the church, and that, absolutely, there was no free speech, no ability to adopt other cultures, other than to say that our culture is the only way, and then on top of that, to bring forth civilization to those who have been seen as uncivilized, savage and lesser than or deficient to the superiority to those who were coming to this place.
When the newcomers came, they witnessed people sitting in councils and circles sharing ideas collectively in an egalitarian government in which everyone had a say, and that was the invention of democracy. They also had the premise of understanding that everyone could say something and that that wouldn’t result in death or punishment. That’s what is called free speech.
They also witnessed the idea that, in a society in which all people matter, in which they witnessed the term kanata, the Iroquoisian word which means “the village,” which would eventually become the country, when Europeans were exposed to that term and began to use it to describe what they were searching for, what they were looking for and what they were witnessing, what they were talking about was a collective of people who cared for each other, who looked after each other, who adopted newcomers — there’s multiculturalism — and shared their goods and resources together. That’s what the riches of a village are.
The original term kanata is “the village.” It is the idea that all of us matter and everyone must be considered. Therefore, for those who have, for instance, food or medicines or resources, their duty and obligation as leaders in the community is to ensure that everybody eats, which is the original way in which leadership works in Indigenous communities almost universally across the 600-plus First Nations, hundreds of Métis communities and, of course, dozens upon dozens of Inuit communities in the North. The number one criterion is: Do you share? That is the criteria of leadership within our communities.
When the newcomers, Europeans — later, Canadians — witnessed that, they eventually created the social welfare state, the idea that if you lost your job or if you were suffering in some way or another, you would have access to welfare or unemployment insurance or medicines, the health care system, which was also invented by Indigenous peoples.
It is Indigenous peoples who have given us everything that is Canadian. The social welfare policies that we now live under were Indigenous in their centre. They were not invented by Europeans. Europeans, of course, had important things to say along the way and, of course, were important in terms of legislation and introducing them later into the Constitution, bringing them into laws and policies, and then they become the normal fabric or status quo ideas that we consider to be Canadian today, but they are, unquestionably, at the centre, Indigenous.
A guaranteed livable basic income is the most Indigenous of Indigenous ideas. It is the premise that everyone matters. It’s not just simply something where we decide to put on an orange shirt and wear it one day a year. If we were to implement a guaranteed livable basic income, we would adopt the principle that everybody matters, that those who perhaps cannot feed themselves, those who cannot service themselves, those who cannot get the same opportunities as everybody else, matter at the table, matter at the feast. And just like at a feast in almost any single Indigenous community across this country, we feed the children, those who cannot feed themselves, and the elders first, which is precisely what this policy, this premise, this bill is ultimately all about. It is to consider not just an Indigenous idea but the most Canadian of Canadian ideas.
This brings me to the first point, which is that if we were to live up to being kanatian, or Canadian, we would live up to the idea of a guaranteed livable basic income because it would be the most fundamental of our ideas of who we are as a nation. This is what differentiates us from our neighbours to the south and from countries all across the world. In fact, it is democracy, health care and multiculturalism. The idea that everybody matters is what Canada exports to the rest of the world. An example would be UN peacekeepers, yet another Indigenous idea that Canadians, Europeans, learned from Indigenous peoples and therefore brought to the world.
This brings me to the second point, and it is that if we are to fulfill reconciliation, all the major reports, whether that be the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, whether that be the Truth and Reconciliation 94 Calls to Action, whether it be the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report’s 231 Calls for Justice — every single one of them is at the central core principle, which is that those we have left behind, those we have forgotten or have been marginalized in society, have been, therefore, mired in poverty, mired within an experience of over‑policing and mired in situations of great danger. If we were to rectify and engage that issue on any level, a central core principle of how we engage that, both in urban and in rural contexts, and what will evoke reconciliation will be a guaranteed livable basic income.
I’ve been speaking across the country about this at numerous events. In fact, I’ve written about it in my book right here. My book is talking about the central core principles of Canada, which begin in the same places that were the first footsteps of colonization in the Prairies. It’s no surprise that these principles, the solutions, come out of places on the Prairies, places like Dauphin where we’ve seen successful implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income. For all the reasons that my colleague just spoke about a second ago, not only does it deal with the issue of conflict in homes, conflict in communities, or the idea even that it makes people more intelligent or have the opportunity for more intelligence, this is a core principle of what reconciliation will be all about.
If we don’t implement this, we will be missing a major factor, which is that no one cares about relationships if you are worried about eating, if you’re worried about having your home —
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Sinclair: Meegwetch, thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sinclair. That was very interesting. We’ll now begin our question period.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I have a general question for all of our panellists, but I wanted to start with Mr. Caron. I was wondering what kind of research you did and what each of the panel members envisions as a basic livable income. The term means different things to different people.
Last year, we had the gentleman who chaired the British Columbia panel on basic income. He testified at the committee, and he said it was the most comprehensive piece of work that had been done on basic livable income in Canada, and he thought perhaps the entire world. He wasn’t supportive of starting at ground zero and implementing a new basic income program. He was more siding with building on existing programs so that people with different needs would be treated differently, and that’s what their basic income program would envision.
Mr. Caron, could you start with that? What did you envision? In your opening remarks, I understood you weren’t looking for a universal program. You mentioned the concept of top-up, and you also mentioned the possibility of eliminating existing social programs, which wasn’t the recommendation of the task force in British Columbia. Could you just try to respond to all those questions, please?
Mr. Caron: Thank you very much for the questions.
You’re right that basic income is a very complex topic because it means many things to many different people. We’re looking at various examples in the past, such as annual citizenship income, which gives the same amount to everyone as a citizenship right. In Alaska, there’s a program that basically allocates revenues from natural resources extracted in Alaska and is given to the citizens as, basically, citizenship rights. You have universal basic income, which has been promoted as giving money to everyone to ensure that everyone has revenue to sustain themselves, and then we’ll recoup a large portion of it through the tax system as a universal version.
What I’ve been promoting is basically using the system we have right now. We have a low-income cutoff that is determined by Statistics Canada, so we know where the level of poverty is, and we can actually, through fiscal means, reach that level and guarantee it for everyone in the country. Now, obviously, it has a cost. I like Professor Kevin Milligan, who, incidentally, is from B.C. as well. We mentioned basic income and the impossible trinity. You cannot have a program that gives a large amount of money at the same cost to the public purse as the current programs, and at the same time, work on trying to recoup so much that you will not affect work incentives. You can only have two of these objectives.
The main opposition to the idea of basic income always comes to the point that people will not want to work. I don’t agree with this because we’re always talking about low-wage jobs where people are forced to do that work. We’re basically talking about wage slaves because they don’t have any other choice than working in those low-wage jobs. I will be asking you at that point, what is the productivity of these people when you’re forced to do a task for which you know you might be in a position to do better? You might be an artist, as I said. You might want to start a business, but you’re afraid to because if it doesn’t work, you’ll basically go back to poverty. So in the end, that guarantee is freeing up the possibilities for people, and this is what I’m calling for.
Senator Marshall: Can I hear from the other panellists with regard to that? I know, Mr. Roebuck, that you were talking about victims of family violence. Even before somebody decides to leave an abusive partner, they need supports. When you talk about a basic livable income, are you thinking about something for everybody, or do you see that there are different needs with different groups?
Mr. Roebuck: I think I would support an income test or an income threshold for that type of top-up approach. I’m not an economist by any means; I’m a criminologist and victimologist. However, I think that people can feel trapped when there is no visible opportunity to leave and to have support. I think one of the most powerful concerns in that space is providing the necessities of life for children. If there are really limited options, that’s difficult.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I thank the witnesses for joining us.
My first question is for Mr. Caron. It’s hard not to call him “Guy,” since our careers unfolded in sort of the reverse order. They have a really good mayor in Rimouski. They had one who wasn’t bad and now they have a good one.
Mr. Caron, you quite rightly talked about your plan for a threshold income, not a universal one. I want to take you to the municipal level, because as we know, the impact of poverty means that some of these costs are borne directly by the municipalities. I’m thinking in particular of homelessness and housing, where municipalities have to invest financially while having a financial structure that is totally unsuitable, given that 75% of municipal revenue comes from property tax, so services to buildings, not people.
Could you illustrate what the impact and financial costs of poverty might look like for a city like Rimouski?
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question, senator.
You won’t be surprised to find that I agree with you on everything you said. The costs are huge and much higher than before. You know very well that for municipalities, in Quebec as in Canada, city governments, mayors and municipal councils are there largely to provide services to buildings, such as piping, drainage, roads and so on.
Today, the reality is different. We need to work for the community and, ultimately, for the social programs to which we contribute. We used to see this in Montreal and Quebec City, in the big cities; now we see it in regional cities like Rimouski. We’re talking about poverty, and yesterday we inaugurated new offices for Moisson Rimouski-Neigette, the region’s food bank. They had to double the floor space to meet the needs of the general population. We received funding to run a shelter for the homeless in Rimouski, a city of 50,000 people. This is a situation we hadn’t really seen before COVID-19. Today, we need funding. The city has to pay for a building, infrastructure and resources to fight poverty, which is becoming increasingly systemic.
As you mentioned, our revenues are not adequate for this. Property tax is a tax on wealth; it is not designed to pay for or contribute to investment in recurring social problems. Unfortunately, because of the Constitution and the wishes of the federal and provincial governments, we are still in this trap where, in most cases, more than two-thirds of revenue comes from property taxes.
There is a whole lot of thinking to be done on the role of municipalities as local government, but yes, the situation is always worse for municipalities, which very often do not have the means to deal with these crises caused by poverty.
Senator Forest: You were a federal MP and you showed a bit of your philosophy when you ran for the leadership of the New Democratic Party. You understand the complexity of federal-provincial relations. And we’re not even talking about the municipalities, which are dependent on the provinces.
How can we design a guaranteed basic income in a context where jurisdictions can be very divided, given the social safety nets that are, in some cases, under provincial jurisdiction, and in other cases, under federal jurisdiction? How, in such a complex context, can we get to the point of moving towards a basic income?
Mr. Caron: Good question, senator.
First, it isn’t an allowance. It isn’t a program such as Employment Insurance, for example, or a benefit such as Old Age Security, which led to federal and provincial issues and conflicts in the past.
The proposed basic or guaranteed minimum income would be a tax measure. It would be used and managed through taxation, not allowance resources. Negotiations or discussions with the provinces would be necessary. Would this encourage the provinces to eliminate social assistance, given the guaranteed minimum income, regardless of whether a social program is in place? These issues should be studied. Conflicts have arisen in the past and will continue to cause concern. The mere fact that this is a tax measure, and not an allowance, minimizes the issue. If the goal is to eliminate poverty, the provinces could benefit from it as well. Bill S-233 isn’t a model. It’s about establishing a national framework to set the conditions for implementing a guaranteed minimum income. I’m proposing a model. Some difficulties may arise. However, if we have a framework, we can do this more effectively, with clear and hopefully measurable objectives and guidelines.
Senator Gignac: I want to welcome the witnesses. I’ll now turn to my fellow economist. Mr. Caron, thank you for joining us this morning. I’m curious about your reaction to Quebec’s decision. In 1997, Quebec put together a report by experts who analyzed the issue of guaranteed minimum income. We know that Quebec is Canada’s all-time champion when it comes to the social safety net. Quebec has just about every social program. It’s ahead of the other provinces. This isn’t meant to show a lack of sensitivity. We certainly all support the fight against poverty. If the Quebec government rejected the idea after reading the expert panel’s report, the bar is set high for anyone to convince me that it would be a good idea.
My first question is the following. You must have read the report. What are your thoughts on it?
Mr. Caron: I remember reading it. I agree that Quebec couldn’t have an effective basic income. To be effective, the measure must be Canadian, not Quebecois. A basic income in Canada would be administered by the federal government and by the Canada Revenue Agency for all the provinces. In Quebec, the scope was much more limited.
I read the report from a perspective that focused on work disincentives. Given that the issue was studied, it appeared relevant. However, this was done in light of the proposals made to the panel. I read the report and found it informative. It contributes to the debate and the ultimate conclusion that basic income isn’t adequate. The answer is partially correct. Quebec doesn’t have the capacity and range of social programs required to have a basic income as proposed. That’s why I never proposed it for the provinces or even the municipalities.
I’ll talk about the municipalities quickly, to follow up on Senator Forest’s question. Some cities in the United States are implementing basic income. These cities include Chicago, Milwaukee and a few other major cities. They have the opportunity to do so, because they have revenue diversification. Municipalities in Quebec and Canada don’t have this, so we couldn’t do it. Quebec has revenue diversification for the same reasons. However, Quebec has less capacity than a more centralized government, which could do this for all the provinces. As a result, Quebec would be less prepared to implement a guaranteed minimum income.
Senator Gignac: Some leading economists have reservations about this. Pierre Fortin, who spearheaded government initiatives on child care and parental insurance in Quebec, and Jean-Yves Duclos, the minister, talked about the negative impact on work incentives and the social acceptability to many low-income workers. These workers might take a dim view of people who could stay at home and earn almost as much as they do. You seem to be downplaying this aspect. What are your thoughts? You must have read the briefs and studies by Nicholas-James Clavet, Jean-Yves Duclos and Guy Lacroix on the topic of work incentives?
Mr. Caron: Yes.
Senator Gignac: What are your thoughts?
Mr. Caron: I don’t deny that there would be a disincentive to work. It would be minimal. The Parliamentary Budget Officer put the figure at 1.5%. Would the situation be the same as with the status quo? Probably not. We must remember that our current patchwork of programs also constitutes a disincentive to work, because of the welfare wall. We’re talking about social assistance and different programs. When you work or want to return to the workforce, for every dollar of income, a portion of that dollar will be cut from the benefit received from your program. These disincentives currently apply to the patchwork of programs available.
We’re talking about people who would earn as much as the people who employ them. This isn’t exactly the case. When we talk about the low-income cut-off, we’re often talking about $18,000 or $19,000 a year for a single person. A person can decide to live on an income of $18,000 a year in Toronto, although I don’t see the benefit of doing so. The person probably wouldn’t be all that productive in a minimum-wage job as things stand. Maybe the person would like to become an artist or take a risk in life and launch a business. Maybe the person would like to contribute in a different way. The person might want to live on $18,000 or $19,000 a year, and then volunteer for different causes. Some people might not want to work because they’ll have $18,000 or $19,000, or a family with one child may have a minimum of $25,000. This may happen, but it won’t be a widespread situation. Remember that the current situation also creates its own disincentives to work.
[English]
Senator Smith: Mr. Roebuck, given your mandate of addressing the needs concerning victims of crime, many of whom experience mental health challenges and addictions, what key considerations should be addressed in the design of a guaranteed livable basic income program to ensure it effectively supports these vulnerable populations?
Mr. Roebuck: We have a housing crisis in Canada, and from my perspective, homelessness and the lack of housing is one of the most critical threats to public safety. It affects survivors of partner violence who don’t have places to go to. It affects young people. Many people are currently experiencing homelessness, and it is a crisis.
What we’ve seen from a very rigorous study in Canada on housing first, the At Home/Chez Soi project, there is an evidence base to say that providing the income to have access to housing is a stabilizing factor that can end homelessness, even for people who have been chronically homeless.
As a researcher prior to my role, I spent a lot of time with young people who were homeless in Ottawa, and there are so many dynamics that create conditions of unsafety, including, for young people and young adults, the draw to sell drugs as a way of surviving. We have a substance crisis as well in Canada, and I think a guaranteed livable income is part of a way to address the supply aspect of that. There are a lot of people who get into that just to survive. It’s not what they want to be doing, but it’s an open door when you don’t have other options.
Senator Smith: What I’m asking is whether you have considered potential safeguards that should be built into a national guaranteed livable income program that would protect the vulnerable populations from exploitation or being taken advantage of?
Mr. Roebuck: For the framework, there would have to be consideration to the capacity of coercive and controlling behaviour over a guaranteed livable income. We know that, in abusive relationships, sometimes people will take control of their partner’s benefits and those types of things. There would have to be some safeguards and measures that make it easy — if somebody is able to leave that situation or escape it, that they have access to the benefits on their own. What we’ve seen in Canada is that compensation programs for victims of crime are being decreased across the board, and we have so many gaps that are negatively affecting people.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our panellists for being here this morning.
I have a general question for our panellists, those that have the economic expertise to answer this question. I do care for everyone’s well-being and fighting poverty. I believe most members of our committee share these values. But as a former banker, I would always be extremely concerned with the risks and our ability to mitigate the risks, and the ability to mitigate those risks would determine how we would proceed or our ability or disability to proceed.
There are many parallels to draw between a guaranteed livable income and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB, during the pandemic. No doubt the CERB was a lifesaver for many individuals and families. No doubt on that. I don’t question that whatsoever. It didn’t lead to social unrest, so it was a positive. However, many were critical of the CERB, including the value of the amount distributed to the recipients and the length of the program. Some also felt it was a disincentive to work or even look for work, besides increasing the scarce resources and increasing the savings, and if you have scarce resources and excess liquidity because of your savings, well, it leads to inflation.
In your opinion, are those concerns valid, and do you have any concerns that those same problems could be replicated with a guaranteed livable basic income? Many of you are favourable for it, but I’m sure you’ve all looked at the risks involved and the well-being of society as a whole. I do believe in fighting poverty and the well-being of all. Does anybody want to take a crack at that?
Mr. Caron: I think more than the disincentive to work, inflation is really what we need to be careful about. This is why I said that if you’re reaching the low-income cutoff for everyone as a guarantee, depending on the size of family and where you are — obviously, you won’t have the same level if you live in Toronto than if you live in Rimouski, because the cost of living will be different. There is a real risk that that guarantee will actually bring about an increase in, say, the cost of rent, because landlords might say, “Okay, my tenant might have been poor in the past or more insecure in terms of revenues, but now they actually have this guarantee, so I can increase the rent a little bit more.” If there’s no mechanism to control this, there is a risk, and this is why the concept should be studied to see what the drawbacks might be.
In terms of the CERB, I agree with you. It was done very fast because we had a crisis. It was a form of basic income, but let’s remember that it was also conditional. The conditions were not really well understood by the population. Because we were in a crisis and because of the need to survive, that crisis prevented information from reaching everyone in an efficient manner. Then the program ended and there was the need to recoup some of the money that shouldn’t have been given because of the lack of proper administrative oversight. There are reasons for that lack of oversight, as you may agree. But then we were in a situation where people, because it was conditional, had to refund and had to give back the program.
I think the difference between CERB and what would be a guaranteed minimum income is the fact that you would prepare the land for a guaranteed minimum income. You would talk about, you know, this can take the place of Old Age Security, because the minimum guaranteed income would be over and above what Old Age Security would be, so that would be replacing that program. We’re talking about maybe the Canada child benefit would be eliminated, because I think children would actually increase the level of the low cutoff at which you receive it. There would be preparation for this, which you didn’t have a chance to have with CERB.
Inflation is a proper concern, and you would have to adapt the program accordingly. I don’t think it should be breaking or stopping the efforts to look into the national framework that would be put in place to frame the creation of a guaranteed minimum income.
Mr. Sinclair: I’m not sure the CERB is an accurate comparable to this particular situation. Perhaps what I would premise that statement by is the lack of a context of talking about this as really a racialized issue. This is an issue in which people who are most suffering in our cities particularly, but also in the rural areas, are often Indigenous peoples, racialized peoples and also newcomer populations, because they have lack of opportunity. They’re often at times over-policed or in situations involving interactions with the justice system, often negatively. This, therefore, leads to lower health outcomes, shorter lifespans, et cetera. Of course, all of that is indicated by the immense number of children in the child welfare system, which is a direct cause of poverty, and, as we well know, is very much situated in the Indigenous context in the country.
Here is what we can do. We could pay for these issues in the health care system, in the justice system, in the social welfare — the immense number of issues of social welfare, but a much more adequate way to think about it is the way that we’ve made investments in, for example, safe injection sites or low-income housing within social developments, or perhaps how we’ve been able to look at the way in which we can target certain populations, particularly in the ways in which they transition to cities, and which give them educational opportunities. A small, pennies-on-the-dollar funding then has direct incomes and outcomes, looking at the way safe injection, for example, works or the way in which housing projects work, which then reduces people’s costs within the health care system, the justice system and the child welfare system.
A much more accurate way to think about this is we can either pay for these immense problems, systems that deal with things reactively, or we can deal with things proactively, which is exactly what a guaranteed livable basic income is. It’s a proactive approach of dealing with what we end up paying for anyways, and often way much more so in a reactive way in which our justice system, child welfare system and health care system are already stretched to the max. That’s a much more accurate way to think about the issue.
Senator MacAdam: The question is for Mr. Caron. I’m a senator from Prince Edward Island, and my understanding is that, in support of P.E.I.’s work to deliver a province-wide guaranteed basic income, a federal-provincial working group has been established, and it’s begun to meet and mostly enable the exchange of survey and administrative tax data. How do you think this work contributes to the larger conversation about a guaranteed basic income, and what are your thoughts on the P.E.I. proposal?
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question.
I was aware of the P.E.I. proposal, but only broadly. I didn’t look into it, so I cannot give any answer on the specifics of it.
On your larger question about the federal-provincial work being done, as I said, I’m not very confident that provinces are in a position to do it. I think P.E.I. might actually serve as a nice pilot project or pilot program. The negotiation or the discussion with the federal government is actually essential in the sense of funding the program, because much of what we are seeing federally — once again, Employment Insurance, or especially Old Age Security, and maybe the Canada child benefit — are elements that would be basically funded by a guaranteed minimum income and thus could actually help to fund it by integrating those amounts.
When we’re looking at what the province is doing, obviously, the province is in the forefront of the fight against poverty with programs such as social assistance. It’s probably in a good position to adapt the reality of a guaranteed minimum income to the reality of social assistance and eventually tweak the programs to make them complementary.
I cannot speak specifically about what has been proposed in P.E.I., because I didn’t have a chance to look at it lately. Broadly, if it is managed federally, or in this case provincially, there needs to be a synchronization between federal and provincial efforts.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: My first question is for Mr. Roebuck. I am concerned about the issue around homelessness that you speak of. When you talk about a guaranteed basic income, most certainly, that would be helpful, but there are a couple of concerns that I have regarding how the framework should be thought about in terms of responding quickly.
I think about what has happened in the past couple of years around housing and how, because of multiple factors, within a couple of months, in a place like New Brunswick, which is usually a cheaper place to live, if you will, rents went up by hundreds of dollars with only one or two months of lead time for the people involved. Many people were thrown into the situation of being homeless who didn’t think about that as being a thing just a couple of months before that — not people who were wealthy, but certainly people who had an adequate income, a basic income, at the time. I’d like you to comment on that. How does a framework come to be that has responsiveness built into it so that people aren’t left with a situation that would be hard to predict? Who fills in the gaps in those situations?
Mr. Roebuck: These are complex questions, and that’s why I really support the approach that has this bill developing a framework and not jumping right into a program but actually taking the time to design that.
My colleagues and I wrote a paper on responses to homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the big themes was that when the pandemic hit, suddenly, we could be innovative and could break out of business as usual. We could think differently. What would it be like if we thought about our housing and homelessness crisis as a public health crisis that has significant consequences to Canadians? I think that’s the case, so we do need to think differently and break out of those constructs. We need to invest in that strategic thinking process to balance all of the variables because it’s complex. I see many people who want the opportunity to get into housing, to be able to get a job and to be able to feel that participation. There are so many barriers. I think we can do better.
Senator Kingston: I would like to move on to something else you talked about, and that’s the effect of having a basic livable income that is accessible to you and you alone and the whole idea of coercive control. I have seen women who are homeless who are walked to an ATM when the cheque is in their bank account. When you’re looking at basic livable income, there are people, who if you give them enough money, then they can sort it out on their own, but there is a significant number of people who are victims, who face systemic discrimination or have all kinds of other issues who actually need help in order to navigate the situation they find themselves in. When you’re looking at a framework, I think it’s important to understand that — for instance, you talked about housing first — the housing-first model requires the idea of supportive housing. How does that get built into a basic livable income? I think there are many people who would benefit from this who need a bit more than just a certain amount of money in their bank account.
Mr. Roebuck: Money and independent housing on their own aren’t a comprehensive solution. We have to think holistically. Coercive control and human trafficking are complex, big issues, and they require supports along with the income supplements, so I agree.
Senator Kingston: On the second round, I’ll ask the other two witnesses what they think about these things.
Senator Ross: This question is for Mr. Caron. This question really isn’t about debating the pros and cons of a GBI or the issues around whom it can help. As mentioned by my colleagues Senators Gignac and Loffreda, we all need to work together to help those who are living in poverty. But do you envision that, ultimately, the goal of this bill is implementing a guaranteed livable basic income, and if so, are we passing the bill to indicate how it will be done? I’m told I’m can no longer say a new senator since I’ve been here almost a year, but this confuses me, this idea of a framework. Is this a bill that spends money or simply decides how to spend it? It’s very nuanced to me, and I’m just not very clear about that. I’m interested if, ultimately, the recommendation of the framework would be, “Here’s how to do it,” or whether the recommendation could be, “Don’t do it.” Mr. Caron, I’m interested in your opinions on that.
Mr. Caron: Thank you very much for the question.
I think the bill is a smart way to address the issue of guaranteed livable income because we’re talking about many different things. As was mentioned before, is it the universal model, conditional model or unconditional model? How would it be funded? What would be the impact on the incentive to work? What would be the impact on inflation? These are relevant concerns that need to be addressed. I think a bill that would create the conditions for a guaranteed minimum income would be premature at this point because we need to look at all the potential consequences of moving in that direction.
I’ll give you the reference of when the social safety net was being built in Canada. It was not done through the initiative of one bill. It was really a work that has been done following the report in the U.K., and we had the same in Canada done by Ms. LaMarsh.
I think we need to start having a fruitful conversation on this, and most of the time we’re afraid to do it because we’re afraid of the potential drawbacks, be it inflation but especially work incentives, which is used all the time.
The bill has the right approach. Let’s look at it seriously. Let’s put the resources into seeing how it could work and how we can alleviate the problems that could surge out of this program. Let’s take one, two or three years, but let’s put effort into trying to build something rather than giving reasons why not to do it, which is what I’ve seen in all the debates around the world, starting with Mincome in Manitoba, but we see it in Finland and everywhere it has been applied. We do a pilot program, we get some results and some data, but then we stop because we’re afraid to take the further step. The further step is not implementing it; it’s creating the right conditions to see how it could be implemented.
Senator Ross: Thank you, Mr. Caron.
There is a definite timeline in this bill, and I’m wondering how you feel an election within the next year could impact that timeline and the ability to meet the timeline.
Mr. Caron: Elections are always affecting timelines. I think it’s possible, but this doesn’t belong to a single political party. We’ve seen Conservatives in the past in favour of basic income, as well as Progressives, Liberals, New Democrats being in favour of it in different forms. I think this is something that should be addressed structurally. Leave the politics on the left or the right to find faults to what will be developed because there will be different perspectives, but let’s build something that will be doable. That’s the first and most important part. I don’t think a universal model is doable, so let’s not think about that. If we’re moving toward guaranteed minimum income, which is guaranteeing an income that is sufficient to get out of poverty, let’s see what the conditions would be and then let the politics oppose it or support it based upon their positions. I don’t think it’s for the political parties themselves to build what the guaranteed livable income program should be. I think it belongs to the people we have who are experts within government to design it, as they have for other social programs in the past.
Senator Ross: Thanks very much.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of our witnesses. My questions are for all of you, but I’d like to start with Dr. Sinclair.
Dr. Sinclair, an issue was raised earlier by one of my colleagues around inflation. You mentioned the downstream costs of it. We know from even the most recent studies that have been done by B.C. — when David Green appeared before us, he acknowledged that, in fact, a guaranteed livable income would not contribute to inflation, so those who have been critical of this have already talked about that.
We know that we spend over $80 billion a year now keeping people in poverty. You mentioned some of that. That’s not including the costs to the health care system and the legal system and all of the issues we’re seeing throughout the country.
I’m curious whether you know whether Quebec consulted with First Nations in 1997 when they were looking at this area. I’m curious as to how you would see the type of framework that’s suggested in this bill not only contributing to the reconciliation efforts and the nation-to-nation discussions, but how you would see this contributing to the protection of inherent rights and self‑determination of Indigenous peoples in this country.
Mr. Sinclair: Consultation of the 2020s is not the consultation of the 1990s. It is much more meaningful now and much more demanding, and it actually involves conversations and including people at the front end of the project, not some letter that’s sent to a band office on a Friday afternoon that — no surprise — received no response. In the 1997 model, like other jurisdictions across the country, there was very little to no involvement of First Nations in the analysis or the delivery model when it came to talking about the outcomes of a livable income. That is unsurprising, because I could equally point that same finger at several jurisdictions across the country, including some in my own here in Manitoba.
The fact is we cannot deny that Canada’s success has come at the cost of Indigenous communities. I use a basic model. Indigenous success always means Canadian success. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, when we deal with major issues that involve most markedly the impacts on Indigenous communities, racialized communities and newcomer populations, then everybody succeeds. That means we pay less for things like policing. I gave the safe injections in Thunder Bay example earlier. When just pennies on the dollar were used to create a support program to help people deal with the issues of addiction, we saw a massive decrease, in the double digits, of engagements with police and the justice system. That is just one example, never mind the health care system.
The reality is that when we deal with the issues of a guaranteed livable income, it means that racialized communities, Indigenous communities and newcomer populations are most directly impacted by that. That means fewer interactions with the health care system, the justice system and the child welfare system. We would have analyzed that over a long period of time, but as I think we all know, racialized peoples, newcomer populations and particularly Indigenous communities in segments across the country have generally not been included in provincial government actions or municipal government actions because they have no legal relationship with those communities other than that they share issues like natural resource management and so on that are of interest to First Nations, say.
The broader point is that when we involve Indigenous communities within our conversations around the national economy of the country, then we necessarily realize that we are paying for this issue, whether we put it on paper or not or whether we bring it up at a Senate committee or not. We are continually and consistently paying for this issue in various ways. Therefore, we have to push it to the front of the conversation and make it a part of our questions and conversations at every single turn.
That is why I’m constantly reminding Canadians that these ideas that we come up with in the social welfare state to care for each other are necessarily Indigenous ideas; they are things we learn from Indigenous communities. We must put that at the front just as we do, for example, for territorial acknowledgements. We can’t just say something and then move on as if it didn’t happen or isn’t talked about.
We have to be able to look at how this is impacting those who have been most impacted by Canadian success, which has cost Indigenous communities more than anyone else. If we realize that Indigenous success will inevitably mean Canadian success, it will give us a model to look at the issue of guaranteed livable income and understand that this will necessarily deal with those issues all at the same time.
Senator Pate: Dr. Roebuck?
Mr. Roebuck: I’m sorry. Could you restate your question?
Senator Pate: We were talking about the fact we are already spending $80 billion a year keeping people in poverty. You’ve given some incredible examples, as have all of the witnesses, about how this could benefit. Often, the costing does not include the savings that would occur. I’m wondering if you could build upon that.
Mr. Roebuck: With the Housing First study, there were mixed outcomes in terms of the cost-benefit analysis. We found that people were able to keep housing for longer when it was provided. For some people, when they measured the cost savings for different institutions, there were definite cost savings that didn’t overtake the amount that was spent on the program. For people with the highest degree of needs, it actually provided a significant return on investment.
To the point that we just heard, the question is where we want to be investing and spending our money. The victims and survivors of crime in Canada report from 2009 showed that survivors were absorbing $10 billion in costs. There has been significant inflation since then. Those are things that pull people out of the labour market and out of areas where they can contribute more fully. There’s a whole science of crime prevention that would align well with the principles of guaranteed livable income and shows that when we do invest strategically, there are a wide range of benefits.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a question. I see that Quebec is currently holding consultations on social assistance benefits. A study was published on inequalities for people at the same level. For example, for childless couples, the figure is in proportion to the median after-tax income in the same situation. We can see that Canada and Quebec are slightly below the OECD average. Denmark is in a better position, at 52%.
Have you conducted any studies to compare OECD countries on the basis of income as opposed to crime rates and all the potential social aspects or benefits gained by looking at all the differences? For example, if Denmark is the leading country at 52%, does that show up in all the other parameters, so that we can see whether we stand to benefit from having an income above or beyond the OECD average, for example?
Mr. Caron: Since my transition from member of Parliament to mayor, I haven’t really had the time to work specifically on this type of study.
However, I can tell you — and Ms. Forget appeared before the committee to discuss this issue in the past — that the example of Mincome in Manitoba showed the value of guaranteeing an income in terms of both health and crime. For example, we saw a drop in cases of domestic violence in households with access to the guaranteed minimum income. It was remarkable. The distinction exceeded the margin of error. The same goes for crime. Why? People no longer needed to think about their own survival. This brings us back to the issue of work incentives and disincentives.
In the 1970s, young teenagers didn’t need to go to work or resort to crime. They were finishing high school and even thinking about post-secondary education. They could do so because of the security provided by the guaranteed minimum income.
We could see this in couples experiencing domestic violence or other crime-related realities. A link was established in the Mincome program, the only long-term study available in Canada in the 1970s.
The Chair: Thank you. Before we move on to the second round, I would like to make a special request. Mr. Sinclair needs to leave at 10:30. Is that still the case, Mr. Sinclair? Do you need to leave at 10:30?
[English]
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, I apologize. I have to teach a class.
[Translation]
The Chair: We’ll move on to the second round for the questions for Mr. Sinclair. We’ll then turn to the two other witnesses.
Senator Forest: My question is the following. In your remarks, you clearly showed that Canada has drawn heavily from Indigenous philosophy in terms of greater solidarity and better ways of sharing. As we move towards a guaranteed minimum income, or whatever we want to call it, how can we now look to Indigenous philosophy for inspiration in relation to your experience in your communities?
[English]
Mr. Sinclair: Well, the basic premise is — I really appreciated Mr. Caron’s mentioning of that — that studies that were done of basic income really came from Manitoba in the early stages. That’s specifically because of the proportional population of Indigenous peoples. One fifth of people in Manitoba are Indigenous. That means everybody works with, lives beside or is impacted by those things that happened in the Indigenous community. So when we invest in a place like Dauphin, Manitoba, for example, where there is a significant number of Indigenous peoples, we see the direct impacts in every part of that society and every part of that municipality in particular. I just wanted to acknowledge that really important study that was done in the 1970s.
So what is the spirit that will move us? I think there is a huge change in the country, but unfortunately, that change is not happening in some of the major urban centres in the country because again the issue of proportional population in places like Ottawa, Toronto, even Vancouver, places like Montreal. The reality is the situatedness of understanding that we are impacted by each other, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and Canadians of all stripes and colours and different communities that have come and learn from Indigenous values that have built a country together that is inherently Indigenous in every step but yet continues to innovate and create together collectively. We see that on a day like Orange Shirt Day where we learn and think about each other. For the other 364 days — I’m being hyperbolic — most of the rest of the days of the year, we do not talk about Indigenous peoples or the fact that we are built by Indigenous values. Often what we do is spin our wheels thinking to ourselves, where do these ideas come from? Then the issues of capitalism, individual property and competitiveness influence us to think the normal way we behave is to leave a group of people behind because they don’t work hard enough or they’re not imagined to be important enough or it’s those people over there who are locked onto a reserve and they have different ways they’ve dealt with the country as a whole.
What I’ve tried to point out in my presentation here is that we are deeply impacted by the social issues and the problems Canada has created and continues to create for First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. We are paying for those exponentially higher than what would ultimately be pennies on the dollar investing in a guaranteed livable income, which would directly impact Indigenous communities but at the same time racialized and immigrant communities.
What I’m trying to say is it is important. Certainly, my colleague Mr. Roebuck talked about the beautiful day of Truth and Reconciliation Day. My father, who was one of you, invested himself in his career to try to get us to wear an orange shirt and look at each other and think about what it means to live in a country that has had egregious things targeted on a community, and they continue to be, but we can to be different. When we wear an orange shirt, we can look at and care for each other and learn from the very values that built us, which is that we adopt the newcomers, we share the medicines and the food, and we ultimately build a village where everybody matters. We don’t just put that on our chest, but we do that for every day.
I see movement in particular jurisdictions, for instance, in places like Manitoba because one fifth of families, communities, voting populations — there is a reason why we voted in the first First Nations premier in a Canadian province in history, and that was because of the massive influx of Indigenous young people into the workforce. It’s because Manitoba governments, for a long period of time, have invested to build Indigenous young people, like who I am going to teach in half an hour at the University of Manitoba in my class. As they enter into the workforce and get that interest and attention and support, then we radically create and recreate the country into what it was always supposed to be, which is a place where everybody matters for every day of the year, not just on one day when we wear an orange shirt, but every day. That is the spirit that will ultimately move us.
The reality is that the centre of Canada’s future will come in areas we are most often thinking about and engaging with each other. One of the side effects of that, is that we will deal with the environmental crisis by looking to Indigenous values. We will also deal with the issue of the economy because that is all the minerals and resources we use. On top of that, we will return to the very values that are Canadian in this country which are necessarily and almost always certainly foundational Indigenous. Meegwetch.
Senator Loffreda: Dr. Sinclair, it is nice to see you again. We saw each other at the Victoria Forum. I enjoyed your book.
You spoke quickly about newcomer populations adapting and injection sites. There is so much to cover. Quickly, we talk about poverty a lot. In Canada, if we look at poverty since 2015, there’s been a substantial decrease in poverty. It went from 14.5% in 2015 to 6.4% in 2020, according to the March 23, 2022, Statistics Canada report. We’ve done well on reducing poverty. We all have that goal and objective in mind.
I want to make the point that for newcomer populations, when I travel across Canada, even across other countries in the world, homelessness is becoming a major issue in our society. Homelessness does not depend on money. It’s not about money. It’s about community support. When you talk about newcomer populations, they do extremely well. They integrate well wherever they are. Why? Because of the community support they get. In many communities, many of the newcomers are those that have, are banks to the have-nots. We have to look at that. Don’t you feel there’s other programs we could implement at this point in time to support the homeless and to support the mental illness we have, to support all that? There’s 10% of Canadians who don’t have bank accounts.
The Chair: We have one minute.
Mr. Sinclair: I’ll just finish this question and then I’ll take off here.
Meegwetch. Wonderful question.
First off, I want to take just a slight issue with that very important question, the preamble to talking a little bit about the way we’ve reduced poverty. I think there are some debates around the ways in which we have manipulated the Market Basket Measure and the ways of perhaps viewing people who are very much still in poverty but now we’re defining them as out of poverty. That’s a debate for another day.
I agree with you absolutely that it’s the wraparound services that bring people out of poverty. The reality is that if you go to any Canadian city, the disproportionate number of people are racialized people and particularly Indigenous people. You only have to go to any city on the Prairies, whether it be Winnipeg, Thunder Bay or Regina, to notice that that is disproportionately to the tune of 70%, 80%, 90% Indigenous populations who are outside sleeping.
What is the number-one challenge? It is the issue of an ongoing system that continues to devalue or perhaps treat people as deficient in all spheres of society. We can use 100 examples of that, but I’ll use the example currently of Indigenous women in the landfill here in Manitoba, continuing to be targeted by various institutions, never mind a serial killer who was enabled for years to keep out of the jail system.
Here is the reality: If you were to ask yourself, what is it that often keeps Indigenous people out of poverty, it is one thing and one thing alone — it is their children. It is the keeping of those children at home. Oftentimes, they are removed because of dire poverty. We just have to look to the work of Cindy Blackstock and the disproportionate issue of poverty on First Nations that drives children into the child welfare system. I would support a child-care model that looks to support First Nations, but the best way we know that childcare works is the ability for First Nations, Inuit and Métis families to be able to keep their children through individual choice. That’s most often not systemic choices. That’s oftentimes paying for services in your local communities, often relatives or maybe local services. Individual choice might just be one of the most important elements of supporting that guaranteed basic income which gives people options to be able to keep their children supported with healthy food, a healthy home, and then also supports for those parents to be able to go to work.
I would agree that there is innovation that is required when imagining what a livable basic income involves, but when we deal with the issue of First Nations, Inuit and Métis, the number‑one issue is going to be keeping kids at home and families together. What’s going to directly address that will be making sure that those families have decent income to be able to have that home, to be a safe space, so when they’re getting into situations of trauma, they’re not continuing to look for what they already had. Let’s keep them in the situation of what they can have versus putting them into issues of more trauma.
Meegwetch. Thank you, everybody.
The Chair: Do you have a couple of minutes, Dr. Sinclair, for a question from Senator Pate?
Mr. Sinclair: Just a quick one. My students can wait.
Senator Pate: I’m sorry to keep your students waiting. I don’t mean any disrespect to them or you.
You mentioned the Mincome project in Manitoba. As you have identified, that showed a 17.5% reduction in crime, which actually included 350 fewer violent crimes compared to similar towns in the area.
I think the fact that this is one of the Calls for Justice of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry is significant, but more importantly, I want to know if you can expand, please, on how you see that Call for Justice will potentially work towards readdressing violence inequality experienced by Indigenous women and what you see Canada’s obligations are in that regard.
Mr. Sinclair: I’ll say three things, and then I have to head off.
First, I’ll reiterate what I said just a minute ago. Women are the number-one caregivers for children in Indigenous communities. They’re most often grandmothers, mothers or aunties. When you are thrust into the issue of child care, that challenges your ability to work, and that challenges your ability to be able to provide for a home in which you now have more mouths to feed, more services and more after-school programs to provide for, et cetera. That is necessarily tied to income.
We know that Indigenous women and girls, according to that report, face more violence than anyone else, meaning that they face more systemic barriers and over-policing or the issues of the child welfare systems doing more inspections on their homes. We know that there is a disproportionate number of Indigenous women who then have their children forcibly removed because of the issue of income solely, almost specifically tied to income. That’s the first issue.
I would just point out when we have a livable basic income, we are directly dealing with what has been the purpose of an entire report, which is that Indigenous women and girls and two‑spirit peoples have been disproportionately targeted by the country and continue to be. Therefore, we end up with those exponential problems I listed earlier.
The other part of the Dauphin report that was a very important highlight is that Indigenous people are oftentimes chronically underfunded, especially First Nations and especially in the later stages of their life. Perhaps they might have access to education funding at the early stages, in their 20s, but for the bulk of my students, most of them are aged 30 and above and coming for reeducation and retraining, especially after a long period of being involved in the child welfare system or justice system. They’re entering school as a mature student. Therefore, there is a tonne of issues that come tied directly to income, which then becomes very stressful to maintain that level necessary for the two to three to four years necessary for retraining to be able to get a new job.
The livable basic income would be that buffer that First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments just, frankly, cannot afford because of the chronic underfunding. This will be a linchpin, a bridge, as it were, to be able to assist Indigenous peoples to be able to enter into the workforce and will not let them fall through the cracks and enter into poverty or trauma or low-income jobs, which then start the cycles all over again of further engagement in situations of trauma and violence.
Third, when we provide livable incomes for uncles and aunties, an entire generation of Indigenous young people then get mentored by those uncles and aunties. Not only do we then service those uncles and aunties who are then being retrained into new positions, but you have now given an entire lifetime of opportunity to a person like you’re looking at right now, who was given an opportunity because he had a father who had a person who believed in him, who helped him through law school and who made sure that he had opportunity. Then this person right here, the guy you’re looking at right now, is now a professor, a professional, who is raising a young woman going to the University of Ottawa, taking flute. Taking a flute music degree would be absolutely inconceivable for a young Indigenous person in almost any sector of the country, but that is what happens two generations down the line when we make the tiniest of investment to help Indigenous people enter into the workforce beyond what is already chronic underfunding for First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments.
What I am saying is what you are doing today by talking about a livable income is you are talking about seven generations from now. You are talking about Indigenous young people who are going to be the future of this country, the fastest-growing population. No one is growing faster than Indigenous people. Those young people will, instead of going into the child welfare system and justice system, they will be mentored by uncles and aunties and who will then enter into universities and colleges and will all be taking care of us in the old age homes and paying the taxes and building the roads and doing all those things, and maybe even leading provinces.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Sinclair. We could ask the clerk to send your students the link to sencanada.ca to follow our work.
Mr. Sinclair: I think that would probably be a better class than the lecture I’m about to give. Thank you, everyone.
The Chair: Thank you, and say goodbye to your father.
Senator Marshall: Mr. Caron, I was involved in the delivery of a lot of these social assistance programs, so I can relate to what you’re talking about with regard to a basic income program, but two big issues were always there. One was the cost of the program. The other issue was ensuring that those who receive benefits under the program are actually entitled to them. Those are two big issues, and, of course, everything always comes back to money. I don’t think anybody can say they don’t want to help somebody who really needs help, but those are two concerns. When you talk to people hesitant about basic income, those are the two issues they raise. Do you have any thoughts or have you considered those two issues? Not just the general population, but the politicians will have to be convinced that these are actual beneficial programs and those needing the help will be the ones getting it. Can you address those two issues? Have you thought that far ahead with regard to the implementation of a basic income program?
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question.
The second one is probably easier to answer because what you would have in terms of those who would be receiving it is those under the low-income cutoff. It is very simple. Those under the low-income cutoff would receive a top-up to reach that level. There are some programs, as I explained previously, that could help some special circumstances — for example, people with disabilities, who have to incur extra costs because of their disabilities. There would be some specific things that would be done to help them in that respect.
In terms of the cost, this is why building a national framework would actually provide a more specific answer. At the time, in 2017, when I looked at the way it would be funded, including some tax credits that are targeted but could actually go into funding this without depriving a specific targeted community of that specific credit because it would have the impact of increasing that low-income cutoff, by limiting some programs — not all of them but some programs that are akin to basic income right now — you can reduce the costs. Once again, I refer to Professor Milligan, who estimated that you could look at a total of $165 billion worth of tax credits and programs that could decrease the cost of providing that guaranteed livable income to the low-income cutoff. Is it $30 billion, $40 billion or $60 billion? I’m not sure.
Senator Marshall: In terms of this issue of realizing savings from other areas, I don’t think a lot of people are convinced about that. I’ve been working in government for 50 years. There are lots of promises to save money, but it seems to be a real challenge, and the governments don’t seem to be able to deliver.
The other thing is, you’re giving a benefit to somebody and then withdrawing that benefit and rolling it into another benefit. I think the selling feature of the program to politicians and also to the general public still needs a bit of work. I don’t know if you want to comment on that.
Mr. Caron: Yes. Actually, when people talk about cutting programs to fund, they think it can be fully funded. I don’t think that’s the case. I think some programs would be redundant with the creation of a guaranteed livable income that gets you to the low-income cutoff. Obviously, the program would not be as costly as just looking at how much money will be provided through that program, but yes, there will be some programs that will be redundant, and we have to account for that.
Once again, we’re looking at the cost for government, and this is a very legitimate question. A national framework would actually provide that possibility of estimating more correctly what the cost would be depending on the parameters that would be used. Also, a component that’s always neglected in this is looking at the real cost of poverty for society. This part is always put aside, but we have to include those costs as well.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Thank you, my fellow economist. We’ll continue the conversation.
Our colleague, Senator Bellemare, has also studied the issue. Some studies actually show that single-parent families would be the people negatively affected by a basic minimum income. I want to hear your thoughts on whether you agree with her claim and whether other researchers have shown the same thing.
If the goal is to align the Quebec and provincial systems with the federal government’s approach, at some point, if we start adjusting everything, the situation will become a bit complicated. What are your thoughts on this assessment by my colleague, Senator Bellemare?
Mr. Caron: She isn’t the only one. I’ve also seen people on the progressive side oppose it. They’re afraid that certain specific groups will lose out.
It’s a valid concern. It must be studied and perhaps even addressed. However, I think that not going along with Bill S-233 for this reason would do a disservice to the topic and to the opportunities that may lie ahead.
In the process of developing this national framework, we might find that certain groups would lose out. Is there any way to eliminate this possibility? No. Studies have been carried out by different groups. I’ve seen studies that were more positive and others that were more negative. These are valid studies. However, if they don’t lead to the establishment of a national framework to study the shape that this minimum income might take — I think that these studies are useful, but they won’t necessarily lead to a result.
Senator Gignac: I may add that, when we look at studies on poverty, often single-parent families are the hardest hit. Is the goal to fight poverty? If the target groups are single-parent families — and they’re often women, unfortunately — I think that we could be missing the boat.
Second, do you really think that Quebec — and this is more political — would agree to introduce a guaranteed national income and then let the whole thing go? Quebec provides about 40% of income support, while the federal government provides 60%. From a political standpoint, I have many reservations about the idea of Quebec falling in line with this. At that point, would there be a right to opt out with financial compensation? Do you have any thoughts on this topic?
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question. It’s extremely relevant. Once again, we’re talking about a tax measure. It would be managed through the tax system. It isn’t an allowance or a program that sends out cheques.
I can understand that the provinces will all have a different answer to the question. When I initially made the proposal in 2017, I said that we had to be careful and plan for negotiations to prevent provinces from feeling tempted to eliminate social assistance with a basic income where the federal government would ensure that a guaranteed minimum income would be reached and that the low-income cut-off would be met.
My feeling today is that we should indeed be careful from the start when preparing a guaranteed minimum income model. We must take care not to move too fast and eliminate these programs. Ultimately, the provinces may find it worth their while and say to themselves: “Gradually, over a 10-year period, I may no longer need to contribute to social assistance. The money that I’m currently investing in social assistance could be redistributed, for example, to strengthen the health care system or other areas. We’ll let the federal government gradually provide this guarantee through the tax system to the whole country.”
Again, these are possibilities. There isn’t any program where this principle came into play and where I can tell you that this will happen. However, if we don’t have this discussion and development within a national framework, I think that we’re missing the opportunity to see how to take all these useful studies into account and come up with a much stronger model than anything seen so far.
[English]
Senator Smith: Mr. Caron, in my mind, an essential principle of a basic income program is that it is a simple process that reduces barriers to access. Given that you do not believe in a universal basic income program, I would like your thoughts on whether or not your proposal adds additional barriers for people, especially those who are homeless and for those who do not have the ability to apply for the program. For example, 10% of Canadians don’t file income tax. I’m just wondering what your comments are.
Mr. Caron: It’s a legitimate concern. I think this question has to be raised accordingly in the creation of that program.
I’ll be referring to a local situation we have in Rimouski with homelessness. We never had a problem with homelessness before, and now we have people who are coming. In many instances, they are not from Rimouski, and we don’t know if they can’t get social assistance or if there are programs to help them. We have social workers going to them to try to understand their reality and get them help to access the services. One community group said, “Let’s use our civic address so that people who are homeless and who need a civic address to get social assistance can actually go to and get their cheque.”
In some instances, we’re seeing people who are homeless but they don’t want the help. They don’t want to file income taxes, and they don’t want social services. If they are in a dire emergency, they might have the help of health services. In some instances, it is their personal choice. In some others, it is a lack of outreach that leaves them marginal and hopeless in that sense that they cannot be helped by the system.
When I’m talking about that program being funded through the fiscal system, I’m also seeing the application for it. It is a bit like what we have for Employment Insurance in the sense that if you are losing your job, you will be applying. Somebody may help you apply for Employment Insurance and yet you’ll get your cheque. In the end, if your situation improves and you get a new job, then you have to inform the government that you are receiving Employment Insurance.
We see the same outline here. You can apply because your situation has changed and you are now in poverty with no revenue. You can apply, and then you are eligible for that extra revenue to get to the low-income cutoff. In the end, if your situation is better, you can actually advise that it’s no longer needed and no longer the case.
The implementation will be important. People may choose voluntarily to be outside of the system. For some people, we need active outreach to get them into the system. Having it funded at the same time through the tax system and through a system where you apply and inform of your situation, akin to Employment Insurance, would alleviate that problem.
Senator MacAdam: My question is for Mr. Caron. Looking at the preamble of Bill S-233, a guaranteed livable basic income would facilitate the transition to an economy that responds to the climate crisis and other current major challenges. Do you see an intersectionality between guaranteed basic income and combatting climate change?
Mr. Caron: That is a good question. At this point, I’m sure I could develop an answer for you, but I will not because I haven’t seen the data. There may be studies that would say that.
That being said, there are some other issues that will be addressed which we haven’t yet talked about today. The issue in many parts of the country is seeing people displaced because of artificial intelligence or new technologies or robotization or automation. New technologies basically are displacing people. More and more, these people, especially if they are low-skilled — in the sense that we understand it in economics — will have more and more difficulty adapting to the new situation. Artificial intelligence and its use in the new economy are of particular concern in terms of ensuring that certain people can still be part of society even when their skills are no longer needed. We’ve been talking about this possibility for a long time. Robotization was one element. Artificial intelligence and its place and its promises that will take place in the future are going to be very disruptive to society, to economics and to Canada as a whole, as in most industrialized countries. We need to address a way to modernize our social safety net to address this future situation.
Senator MacAdam: Have your views on a basic income program changed since you presented your plan in 2017? If so, how have they changed?
Mr. Caron: Have they changed? No. They are evolving as we’re seeing the situation evolving in Canada. We’re talking about the cost of a guaranteed livable income. The way I portrayed its application in 2017 hasn’t really changed that much.
The reality of the social safety net is changing more and more. We’re talking about the cost of it and the adequacy of the income that would be provided. Let’s look at the various programs that we’ve seen in the past. EI provides less money than it did at the beginning because various conditions were put in place to reduce eligibility and reduce the components that could be funded. Social assistance, especially since the 1970s, provides much less protection now because it has not followed the increase in the cost of living. It’s less and less able to provide for the situation of poverty.
The current situation has evolved more than my views on basic income. It has comforted me in a sense that we need to explore this venue, not as a universal way of providing money or as a citizenship right but really as a way to make the social safety net more efficient by limiting some administrative burdens, by eliminating the stigmatization, by giving more freedom and liberty to those who are poor but also by giving them more opportunities to get out by giving them more choices and more options. This is something that guaranteed minimum income can give you that other social programs cannot give you at the current moment.
Senator Kingston: My questions are for Mr. Caron.
First of all, I’d like to underline that what you talked about in terms of an all-party or an all-society approach to poverty reduction in general is a good point. There are examples across the country of poverty-reduction initiatives that have taken place across party lines and that produced results.
I’m also interested in your comments around the framework and creating the right conditions. I go to Bill S-233, under clause 3(3)(d), and the fact that, besides exceptional needs around health and disabilities, it would be good to consider those conditions as we look at the social determinants of health, as well as the others that exist.
I am also wondering what you think of Dr. Roebuck’s comments about housing first and the return on investment — the more complex the person who is being helped through the housing-first model, the bigger the return on investment. Actually, Chez-Soi happened in New Brunswick, so we have some closer-up knowledge of the successes of that program.
What do you think about possibly having another condition in the framework that would include looking at the people with the most significant needs who would receive the greatest return on investment as one of the framework conditions and working with the provinces and all the other things have to be done to harmonize, if you will, the different benefits that exist right now?
Mr. Caron: This is a very complex question with many angles.
I’ll go to your first one, which is on the social determinants of health. We’ve seen this through Mincome. Once again, I cannot put enough emphasis on the importance of that program. There has been no official report made, but it was the longest-running experiment in terms of minimum income. The work of Professor Forget, in analyzing it 40 or so years after the fact, talked about how it impacted positively on the social determinants of health.
This is what we want in society. We want healthy people. We want people who are able to contribute to society according to their own aspirations. I gave this example before. If you want to be an artist, do you want to be a poor artist? Do you want to always be looking at how to survive so you can actually create in this country? You may want to start a business but are afraid to do so because it is risky. You don’t want to be in poverty if it fails. Removing that risk is very positive for society. If you are a teenager and you see your family is getting by in harsh conditions, are you tempted to leave school to work and provide some more income for your family? Or will you be inclined to stay longer, to improve your prospects for life and improve your own conditions so you can contribute in the way that you would love to do?
We’re looking at costs, and we’re looking at conditions and parameters for a program, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that this program will help people to really improve and to live happy lives. We each have only one life to live. Let’s make sure we can enjoy it to the fullest and contribute to the fullest. In looking at the social programs we have now, they have their own set of problems. In many instances, they are bringing us into a welfare trap. They are bringing about stigmatization. These are current problems. But by saying the basic income or guaranteed minimum income would be too expensive and too problematic to put on, so let’s just continue on with the hodgepodge of programs we have right now, and it might be adapted for some and let’s adapt it for some others, in the end, we are constantly missing opportunities to look at what they can do to better the conditions of people and have a positive impact on social determinants of health.
I’m not sure if I answered your question. I think it’s really more of a philosophical question.
Senator Ross: Mr. Caron, when you’re considering the development of a framework, we must include Indigenous consultation, but the bill calls for consultation with the federal Minister of Health, employment, social development and disability, as well as provincial reps for health, disability, education, social development, stakeholders, policy developers, political decision makers and other guaranteed livable basic income experts. What do you see as the logistics for a broad spectrum like this, and is it realistic?
Mr. Caron: I think it is ambitious. I think implementing basic income in a context where it has never been fully implemented is ambitious as well. I don’t think you’ll be getting all these people in one room and building a program; that’s not the case. You will have to start with economists. You will have to start with people, especially in health and social development, that will be able to look at the current set of problems we have, look at the objectives that guaranteed minimum income would actually bring about and start from there. After that point, you will start seeing the impact on other departments, other spheres of society and eventually — you haven’t mentioned economic development in there. I mean, people who are working in economic development and industrial policy-making will also have to be consulted, but it won’t be done at once. I see it being done gradually. Let’s look at the current situation and let’s look at what we want for a guaranteed minimum income and start building it, and then let’s bring in the experts who will provide the pros and cons of the initiatives that are being proposed.
[Translation]
The Chair: This concludes our meeting. I want to thank our witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Roebuck, for coming, and thank you, Mayor Guy Caron. I saw that you were thinking of expropriating parking and view easements. This gave Senator Forest and me a flashback to another life. Good luck in this complex matter.
Mr. Caron: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll be meeting again on October 9, at 6:45 p.m., to continue our study of the practice of including non-financial matters in bills implementing provisions of budgets and economic statements, known as omnibus bills. I want to thank the whole team for the support.
(The committee adjourned.)