Despite false viral claims, Bill S-233 for a universal basic income would not rob CPP and EI funds if passed, according to policy experts and the text of the bill..Last November, Ontario Senator Kim Pate introduced Bill S-233 to call on the Minister of Finance to “develop a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, including temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.”.Questionable assumptions on the bill’s implications have gone viral. One example is a frequently shared Twitter post that says, “Bill S-233 is currently waiting for third reading in the SENATE, if passed it will be made law which means if you are not vaccinated you will not receive EI, CPP, OHS, Social Services or Pension that YOU PAID INTO. This is part of the New Social Bank Credit System.”.False claims begin with the first sentence, as the bill has only passed first reading. OHS stands for Occupational Health and Safety, which is the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government. No social bank credit system has been proposed in Canada, and neither vaccinations nor other social or tax supports are earmarked for elimination in the bill..An April 2021 report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated a guaranteed basic income program would cost taxpayers $87.6 billion for 2022-23. University of Manitoba Economics professor Wayne Simpson says the idea has been around for decades and endures despite its costs..“The attractiveness of it really hasn’t gone away, which is that provinces spend a lot of money and on the administration of social systems without a great deal to show for it,” Simpson said in an interview..“We can deliver that in a much more effective way and less costly way through the tax system than we can through the provincial welfare systems.”.Although the elimination of redundant supports could actually be a good thing, Bill S-233 seems to offer no such efficiencies. The bill calls for “national standards for health and social supports that complement a guaranteed basic income program” and for no “decrease in services or benefit meant to meet an individual’s exceptional needs related to health or disability.” .The last time a Liberal government tried to replace Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement with another program was while Paul Martin was finance minister in the 1990s. The idea then was to merge the two into a single Seniors Benefit as a federal belt-tightening exercise. As it was this time, Fraser Institute Senior Fellow Bev Dahlby recalls a national furor partly based in misconceptions..“What the proposal would have done is increase the total benefit to people with relatively modest income to low incomes and then would have clawed it back at quite a substantial rate so that people who were upper middle income or upper income would receive less or not at all,” Dalby recalled in an interview with Western Standard. .The Liberals were prepared to let seniors already collecting OAS and GIS to remain on the existing programs or choose the new one, but that didn’t prevent misunderstandings and furor..“I actually spoke at a conference on this topic. And I remember some gentleman just being outraged that they would even dare to touch this… This guy claimed that he’d been contributing and people have been contributing to this, as if it were a contributory pension like the CPP.”.Jack Mintz, President’s Fellow at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, said the proposal was so controversial it even had implications for national unity..“There was a real revolt by the seniors. And the whole proposal, even though it introduced in the budget, it was later withdrawn. And also there was a lot of nervousness because it was before the referendum in Quebec [for independence from Canada], and a lot of the seniors were supporters of staying in Canada, so they certainly didn’t want to rock the boat with Quebec seniors,” Mintz told Western Standard in an interview..The guaranteed livable income would probably be taxable and offered in addition to other programs, according to the tax expert..“That would also apply for people claiming Employment Insurance and claiming potentially some other targeted benefits. But it won’t impact the CPP itself. The money is invested, people will get their benefits as promised,” Mintz said..Last December, MP Leah Gazan introduced Bill C-223 with identical text to the Senate bill. The two are part of a coordinated effort to bring in this legislation, according to non-profit advocates UBI Works..Lee Harding is a Western Standard contributor from Saskatchewan.
Despite false viral claims, Bill S-233 for a universal basic income would not rob CPP and EI funds if passed, according to policy experts and the text of the bill..Last November, Ontario Senator Kim Pate introduced Bill S-233 to call on the Minister of Finance to “develop a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, including temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.”.Questionable assumptions on the bill’s implications have gone viral. One example is a frequently shared Twitter post that says, “Bill S-233 is currently waiting for third reading in the SENATE, if passed it will be made law which means if you are not vaccinated you will not receive EI, CPP, OHS, Social Services or Pension that YOU PAID INTO. This is part of the New Social Bank Credit System.”.False claims begin with the first sentence, as the bill has only passed first reading. OHS stands for Occupational Health and Safety, which is the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government. No social bank credit system has been proposed in Canada, and neither vaccinations nor other social or tax supports are earmarked for elimination in the bill..An April 2021 report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated a guaranteed basic income program would cost taxpayers $87.6 billion for 2022-23. University of Manitoba Economics professor Wayne Simpson says the idea has been around for decades and endures despite its costs..“The attractiveness of it really hasn’t gone away, which is that provinces spend a lot of money and on the administration of social systems without a great deal to show for it,” Simpson said in an interview..“We can deliver that in a much more effective way and less costly way through the tax system than we can through the provincial welfare systems.”.Although the elimination of redundant supports could actually be a good thing, Bill S-233 seems to offer no such efficiencies. The bill calls for “national standards for health and social supports that complement a guaranteed basic income program” and for no “decrease in services or benefit meant to meet an individual’s exceptional needs related to health or disability.” .The last time a Liberal government tried to replace Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement with another program was while Paul Martin was finance minister in the 1990s. The idea then was to merge the two into a single Seniors Benefit as a federal belt-tightening exercise. As it was this time, Fraser Institute Senior Fellow Bev Dahlby recalls a national furor partly based in misconceptions..“What the proposal would have done is increase the total benefit to people with relatively modest income to low incomes and then would have clawed it back at quite a substantial rate so that people who were upper middle income or upper income would receive less or not at all,” Dalby recalled in an interview with Western Standard. .The Liberals were prepared to let seniors already collecting OAS and GIS to remain on the existing programs or choose the new one, but that didn’t prevent misunderstandings and furor..“I actually spoke at a conference on this topic. And I remember some gentleman just being outraged that they would even dare to touch this… This guy claimed that he’d been contributing and people have been contributing to this, as if it were a contributory pension like the CPP.”.Jack Mintz, President’s Fellow at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, said the proposal was so controversial it even had implications for national unity..“There was a real revolt by the seniors. And the whole proposal, even though it introduced in the budget, it was later withdrawn. And also there was a lot of nervousness because it was before the referendum in Quebec [for independence from Canada], and a lot of the seniors were supporters of staying in Canada, so they certainly didn’t want to rock the boat with Quebec seniors,” Mintz told Western Standard in an interview..The guaranteed livable income would probably be taxable and offered in addition to other programs, according to the tax expert..“That would also apply for people claiming Employment Insurance and claiming potentially some other targeted benefits. But it won’t impact the CPP itself. The money is invested, people will get their benefits as promised,” Mintz said..Last December, MP Leah Gazan introduced Bill C-223 with identical text to the Senate bill. The two are part of a coordinated effort to bring in this legislation, according to non-profit advocates UBI Works..Lee Harding is a Western Standard contributor from Saskatchewan.
