Photo by Vince Fedoroff
THE TIME HAS COME – Ontario Senator Kim Pate, seen speaking Tuesday in Whitehorse, has long advocated for the concept of a guaranteed liveable income for Canadians.
Photo by Vince Fedoroff
THE TIME HAS COME – Ontario Senator Kim Pate, seen speaking Tuesday in Whitehorse, has long advocated for the concept of a guaranteed liveable income for Canadians.
Ontario Senator Kim Pate brought her pitch for a guaranteed basic liveable income to Whitehorse this week, giving a speech to a packed room of about 35 people at Yukonstruct on Tuesday.
Ontario Senator Kim Pate brought her pitch for a guaranteed basic liveable income to Whitehorse this week, giving a speech to a packed room of about 35 people at Yukonstruct on Tuesday.
Though it may sound radical to some, Pate said the idea of guaranteeing a basic income to people is a movement with lots of history, and lots of support.
“Anybody who believes it’s only me doing this would be dreaming in technicolour, because the reality is there’s a whole bunch of us in the Senate and in the House of Commons who are interested in this, and it really is about trying to build the momentum,” Pate told the crowd.
The idea is to give people a minimum income, with the amount provided decreasing as people earn more, up to a threshold at which people no longer get the payments.
There are several ways of accomplishing this, such as providing a set amount for everybody, or tying it to household income to avoid providing income to adults who still reside with their parents.
Though any type of plan will cost the government money, Pate argued this cost is offset by the society-wide savings that come from reducing poverty.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated the cost of providing a basic income of $16,989 per person and $24,027 for couples at $87.6 billion.
Literature provided by Pate showed that this cost can be reduced by setting the amounts based on overall household income.
Pate also said this doesn’t take into account the savings in government expenses that come from reducing poverty.
“(The parliamentary budget officer) has acknowledged that when he costed it, he didn’t take into account the savings that would come from it,” she said.
Pate also brought up many studies and statistics that show people given a basic income use that money to better themselves, rather than on things like drugs and alcohol, which some detractors say people will spend their money on.
“It’s not a lot of money to invest to actually get people out to provide a springboard out of poverty,” she said.
After graduating from law school, Pate spent the bulk of her professional career working to reform the legal and penal systems in Canada.
Her take is that more money should be put into social services, and less into corrections.
When Whitehorse was building its current correctional facility, Pate argued against putting money into the project, and instead diverting more money toward poverty reduction programs and housing.
A guaranteed basic liveable income is something she has advocated for as part of this and many other social causes.
In 2016, when appointed to the Senate, Pate said she wanted a guaranteed income to be the first issue she took on.
“A number of people who I really respect said, ‘ehh, don’t start there, people will think you’re a bit off the mark here; start with something closer to what you’ve been working on now,’” she said.
Pate waited three years and decided she couldn’t hold off any longer. And then the COVID pandemic hit.
“Suddenly it looked prophetic to some folks,” she said.
“It was the first time they realized how many people didn’t have secure jobs, didn’t have benefits, didn’t have all of the things that so many people, particularly in Parliament, take for granted.”
She began working on the issue with MP Leah Gazan of Winnipeg. Gazan introduced a bill in the House of Commons, while Pate simultaneously introduced a bill in the Senate.
So far, it has turned out that Pate’s bill is the one that gained traction faster — though it’s currently stalled in committee.
Because this is a private member’s bill and not a government bill, it can’t be something that actually costs the government money.
As a result, the bill is not a specific plan.
“Otherwise, the bill will be thrown out before we even get started,” she said. “So, we developed what we call a framework.”
To go further, Pate said she would like to have the Liberal Party add it to its actual platform.
“Many of the Liberal MPs are supportive, many cabinet ministers are supportive, but it is not an official position,” she said. “One of our objectives is to try and make it part of the election platform for every party.”
Some progress is being made on that front.
In December, Yukon MP Brendan Hanley introduced a petition to urge the government to support a guaranteed basic income demonstration project on Prince Edward Island. This had been recommended by a P.E.I. government special committee on poverty.
Though the types of guaranteed income plans vary, Pate said there is lots of misinformation floating around about the idea, such as people thinking it would suddenly mean the cancellation of pensions.
She said the attacks show there is progress being made, and now opponents are doing everything they can to undermine the movement.
“The positive of that to me is that it is getting traction,” she said.
Pate was able to joke around a bit about the conspiracy theories surrounding a guaranteed basic income.
“I was responding to some emails (Tuesday) morning about ‘was I really part of the World Economic Forum and is this a communist plot?’” she said.
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (19)
Up 66 Down 12
drum on Jan 14, 2024 at 5:13 pm
Another wellfare sceme.
I. as a paying tax payer are fed up paying for all of this.
Up 42 Down 15
Groucho d'North on Jan 14, 2024 at 9:20 am
In case you may have forgotten, The Trudeau Liberals have been gathering information on the financial well-being of Canadians for some time now, such as when in the early daze of their term they directed StatsCan to examine our bank accounts to see how well we are doing economically. Why? “High quality and timely data are critical to ensuring that government programs remain relevant and effective for Canadians,” the prime minister said. I would argue that it is a measure of what more needs to be done to ensure control over us.
Up 34 Down 13
drum on Jan 13, 2024 at 7:56 pm
I am an immigrant and worked every day that I have been here. I have costed the Government not one penny. Why11111111
Up 28 Down 8
Groucho d'North on Jan 13, 2024 at 3:46 pm
I've heard this tune before & the lyrics went: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." It never made the Hit List regardless of who performed it.
Up 45 Down 11
Salt on Jan 13, 2024 at 12:18 pm
@Apex Parasite
Ironic you should mention corn and its derivatives being so prevalent in processed food. Companies use it because it is cheap. It is cheap because the U.S. government alone subsidizes production to the tune of $2.2 billion a year. Government incentives are the reason 'capitalism' puts corn products into food. You subsidize corn, you get more corn. You subsidize drug use, you will get more drug use. You subsidize poverty, you will get more poverty.
Anyone with a room temperature IQ knows UBI will not work. Redistributing income or inflating the money supply do not unlock a fairy tale utopia or change supply and demand. But just like wearing masks and standing six feet apart, we will likely be forced into this because it makes some people feel better and feeds the narcissistic gov's insatiable need for control.
Up 9 Down 42
Linnéa Rowlatt on Jan 13, 2024 at 11:13 am
Since we spend a lot on supporting low-income people anyway in ways which only keeps them poor, it looks like it would be cheaper for us as a society to have a liveable basic income which helps them actually improve their lives.
So many commentators here seem to lack a basic understanding of social services in Canada. We spend a lot on healthcare, social assistance, and so on, and a lot of it is conditional on people staying in the same situation (ie: always in one place, always available for work, always disabled, etc). The system itself does not help.
We need a new way to help people get out of poverty and a guaranteed liveable basic income is the best way forward.
Up 33 Down 9
Vlad on Jan 13, 2024 at 10:58 am
@SKorfta. Yes, "everybody" is poor, besides those employed by the government
Up 49 Down 8
T on Jan 13, 2024 at 8:00 am
Why not just lower income taxes instead?
Up 90 Down 19
.gov luvs u on Jan 12, 2024 at 1:04 pm
Simply another step towards central bank digital currency where all transactions will be recorded in one central hub, and the "money" that is doled out will consist of digits in your world citizen account with limitations on where and when and on what it can be spent, giving dot gov total control of your life... and your death.
People in the former soviet union reportedly joked that if the sahara desert turned communist, there would be shortages of sand.
Up 117 Down 22
Dallas on Jan 11, 2024 at 4:06 pm
Socialism works until you run outa other peoples money,call an election here at home and in Canada
Up 33 Down 73
Apex Parasite on Jan 11, 2024 at 1:00 pm
It has long been my contention that, while capitalism has it's place, the essentials of survival should have no chance for profit motives to put said essentials out of reach for anyone, rich or poor.
As soon as the drive for profits rear their ugly head then quality of the product will take a back seat to making money. The prevalence of corn syrup and corn itself in virtually every food stuff will attest. Sounds whacky I know but looking at things in the US such as private medical and prison systems illustrate clearly what I'm getting at. A federal prison system that makes money dependent on the number of inmates has little motive to see fewer of them. There are other parallels as well.
Also, many many people who have worked their entire lives cannot afford to retire. If the basics of life (food, shelter, medical, etc.) were covered there would be much less stress associated with the prospect of reaching the end of your working life. Many people are faced with working until they literally cannot any longer and then they become a burden to their family. nobody is getting rich off such a thing but it may bridge gaps that allow people to retire, pursue their chosen path in life rather than a path that has little to offer besides barely getting by.
Funny how folks are so certain that someone having basic needs covered as a legislative effort equates to communism. It ain't communism...it's a leg up and a stress reliever potentially. Lord knows there is more than enough stress to go around these days.
A basic universal income will for sure have some teething pains but I think it's certainly worth exploring.
Up 153 Down 21
Ben on Jan 11, 2024 at 10:17 am
A springboard out of poverty you say? Sounds like a very deep dive into government dependancy. No thanks.
Up 151 Down 31
Brian Melanson on Jan 11, 2024 at 2:26 am
People who work, know that socialism doesn’t work. It’s been tried and tested. Only people who don’t work think this is a good idea.
Up 156 Down 24
Settler on Jan 10, 2024 at 8:54 pm
Just sayin!
‘When half of the people think they don’t have to work, because the other half will take care of them, and the other half says why should I work when half of my money goes to people that don’t work. That is the beginning, of the end, of any society.
Up 147 Down 25
Stephen on Jan 10, 2024 at 4:13 pm
Basic income is an excellent idea….not really…it’s one of those “paved with good intentions” thingy. When peoples wages go up so does the cost of accommodations, it all follows suit. The Yukon has some of the higher paying jobs hence homes and rentals are sky high. A basic income will only make living more expensive.
Up 159 Down 31
Karl on Jan 10, 2024 at 3:43 pm
Didn't we pretty much test this idea out with CERB? How did that turn out? I recall that people resigned from their jobs in droves.
Up 159 Down 35
Groucho d'North on Jan 10, 2024 at 3:21 pm
Today the government depends on citizens for their revenue in the form of taxes. Adopting a guaranteed basic liveable income will make citizens dependent on the government for their revenue. Personally I don't want to be dependent on the government for anything as they have already demonstrated they can sieze your bank account if you fall into disfavour with them.. Perhaps lowering taxes will provide the financial cushion the Basic Income is intended to provide? The more the public depends on government, the more powerful government becomes. I thiink they already have too much power over us.
Up 6 Down 3
Defund on Jan 10, 2024 at 2:49 pm
Lots of savings if the cbc, senate and governor general are defuded. What say you ms pate?
Up 156 Down 30
SKorfta on Jan 10, 2024 at 1:39 pm
We are one of the richest countries in the world. We shouldn't have poverty. If our government used tax dollars responsibly, and invested in the health and well being of citizens, we wouldn't have all these societal problems. And this idea wouldn't have "traction."
I keep coming back to the thought that our political system needs a complete overhaul. The political class on both sides of the spectrum has ruined this country, while lining their own pockets. We used to have a middle class, now everyone is poor.
Keep voting Liberal, and we won't have any choice but to sell our natural resources, because Canada will be bankrupt.