Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I have to begin by thanking Senator Varone for that engaging, enlightening and entertaining speech.
I rise today to speak to Bill S-206, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.
First, I wish to thank Senator Pate for her steadfast advocacy on behalf of Canadians facing poverty, insecurity and systemic disadvantage. Her efforts have helped sustain an important conversation in this chamber about economic justice and human dignity.
I support this bill going to committee and trust the committee will address the important issues, including those which lead to setting the table for an environment that stimulates and enables people who are unemployed or going to be unemployed to find meaningful work, a just transition.
The idea of a guaranteed livable income has deep roots in Canadian social policy debates. It has resurfaced at pivotal moments during economic upheaval, labour strife, technological change and widening inequality. Today, in the aftermath of the pandemic and amid the rise of automation, artificial intelligence and unprecedented wealth concentration, the concept of a basic income has once again captured public imagination.
The pandemic revealed both the strength and fragility of our social safety net. Programs like the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB, showed that direct income support can be deployed rapidly to address urgent needs, and that was the aim: to get money out quickly to eligible Canadians and Canadian businesses — without bureaucratic hoops and hurdles — to avoid a financial crisis like that of 2008. However, pandemic relief measures also exposed gaps in our employment insurance system and highlighted how precarious work had become for many Canadians. At the same time, these programs revealed vulnerabilities, including the potential for fraud, inefficiency and unintended disincentives.
Beyond the pandemic, technological change is profoundly reshaping the world of work. Robotics, 3D printing and AI have not only dramatically increased productivity but also reduced job security in sectors such as manufacturing, construction, transportation and retail. Now, even knowledge-based jobs, once thought safe — in law, medicine, finance and the creative industries — face disruption from generative AI.
The numbers are sobering. Studies estimate that nearly half of all current jobs are at risk of automation within two decades. McKinsey projects that 45% of current tasks could already be automated and that 60% of occupations could see at least a third of their work replaced by existing technologies. Leading economists warn these trends could displace millions of workers, suppress wages and widen inequality, especially for those without advanced education or adaptable skills.
Canadians are paying attention. Recent polling shows that 32% see a basic income guarantee as the most effective way to mitigate AI’s impact on jobs, 26% favour major investments in re-skilling and 22% want limits on the rapid adoption of AI. Canadians clearly expect their government not only to manage the technical dimensions of AI but also to safeguard its human consequences.
In this context, a guaranteed livable income, a financial floor allowing every person to live with dignity regardless of employment, has understandable appeal. It challenges us to consider what we owe one another in an age of disruption. But we must also ask this question: If we simply provide a guaranteed income, are we comfortable with that as a long-term solution?
Work is more than a paycheque. It gives us identity, belonging and a reason to get out of bed. Canada’s productivity depends on a labour force. Working people contribute to Canada’s productivity by providing the essential labour force and enhancing it through their skills, education and efficiency, which are crucial for generating economic output and driving long-term economic growth.
A universal payment risks detaching income from contribution. If people are permanently removed from the workforce, it could weaken productivity and social engagement. On the other hand, if a basic income supplements rather than replaces work, it becomes extremely expensive.
We should focus on helping Canadians gain the skills and training they need to rejoin the workforce, not merely on providing unconditional payments. The committee should therefore examine how a guaranteed livable income might influence motivation, skill development and labour participation not only among recipients but also among those just above the eligibility threshold.
Other countries have grappled with similar challenges. In response to job anxiety and automation, Germany invested heavily in — in fact, doubled down on — advanced manufacturing and reshored parts of its value chain, strengthening both its economy and workforce resilience. China has implemented similar measures and finds itself in a situation of labour scarcity.
With that in mind, I would like to highlight eight more points for the committee’s consideration. Now we’re getting into Varone country.
One is social cohesion and the “politics of envy.” Economist Greg Mason of the University of Manitoba cautions that most universal-basic-income research focuses narrowly on recipients’ behaviour while neglecting the attitudes of those who do not qualify.
Those earning just above the threshold may perceive unfairness, a dynamic Mason calls the “politics of envy.” Such resentment could undermine social cohesion and public support.
Fairness is not only about policy design but also about perception.
Canadians must see any income support system as equitable, inclusive and motivating — not divisive.
My second point is sustainability and tax reform. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, estimates the gross cost of a guaranteed income at $107 billion this year under a nuclear family model, assuming the elimination of existing low-income tax credits. Moreover, according to the same report, a basic income could reduce annual employment earnings among low-income individuals by nearly $5 billion.
Implementing a nationwide guaranteed income program would be among the most expensive and complex social reforms in Canadian history. It could require abolishing many tax exemptions and deductions and fundamentally restructuring both federal and provincial tax systems. This demands careful study at committee with the right expert witnesses.
My third point is fairness and targeted investment. Equal income does not mean equal opportunity. According to the 2021 PBO report, a low-income single-parent family would lose more than $5,300 annually under a uniform basic income compared to targeted benefits.
The updated 2025 analysis assumes eliminating programs such as the Disability Tax Credit, the caregiver credit, the medical expense credit and workers’ compensation — all essential supports for Canadians facing hardship.
Replacing such programs risks harming the very people we aim to help. We’ve seen the consequences of this approach before: The Ontario Autism Program moved from targeted supports to flat-rate payments and, despite doubling its budget, left many families in crisis. The lesson is clear: One-size-fits-all policies cannot replace needs-based support without leaving high-needs individuals worse off.
My fourth point is constitutional and interjurisdictional implications. Social assistance is primarily a provincial responsibility. A federally administered guaranteed income would require complex negotiations with provinces and territories and potentially restructuring federal transfers.
The committee should examine how federal-provincial cost-sharing could be designed and whether there is a political will among first ministers to pursue such a transformation in the current fiscal climate.
The fifth point is lessons from the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB, and Employment Insurance, or EI. CERB provided crucial emergency relief during the pandemic — $2,000 a month for Canadians who lost income. But its success should not be conflated with the feasibility of a permanent program. Instead, the experience underscores the need to modernize Employment Insurance.
EI remains vital for protecting living standards earned through work and preventing poverty through contributory, temporary support. A comprehensive review of EI — in collaboration with business and labour — could achieve many of the stability and dignity goals that basic income seeks, without dismantling our existing fiscal framework. Former senator Diane Bellemare’s work in this area could be invaluable to the committee.
My next concern is reaching marginalized Canadians. Roughly 10% of Canadians do not file taxes and, therefore, fall outside the data on which basic income payments would rely. Ironically, they are often the very people most in need of help. The committee should study how to reach those outside the tax system and what mechanisms would ensure accuracy, accountability and program integrity.
The seventh point is considering alternatives. Public opinion suggests Canadians prefer targeted, employment-linked programs over universal transfers. An Angus Reid survey found that 59% of Canadians support a youth guarantee program connecting Canadians under 30 to work, 65% support a job path program for all unemployed Canadians, and 74% support a professional training program for all Canadians.
My last point is about the promise and peril of a simple idea. As Professor David Green, Chair of the BC Basic Income Panel, observed:
If we want to address poverty, what simpler way (is there) to proceed than to send everybody a cheque that is equivalent to the poverty line? . . . The problem is when you get close to it and you ask, “How would I actually implement that?”
Basic income is often viewed as a magic bullet or the panacea — expected to reduce poverty, improve health, increase education and strengthen communities. But no single policy can bear all those expectations.
Colleagues, my caution about a guaranteed livable income should not be mistaken for complacency. We must confront poverty, inequality and economic insecurity, but we must do so through targeted, evidence-based and collaborative measures.
This debate is about the kind of society we want to build. Automation and AI are reshaping our world. The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities we cannot ignore. Canadians are asking for security, dignity and opportunity. A guaranteed livable income is one possible response, but not a simple one. It touches the very foundation of our economy, our federation and our social contract. That is why I support sending this bill to committee for careful, comprehensive study. When the numbers are on the table, it could be another story.
Let the study of this bill be guided by evidence, compassion and prudence so that whatever path Parliament takes will strengthen both the economic foundations and the social fabric of our country.
Thank you, hiy kitatamîhin.