I summarized the two readings of the bill. (Claude AI did, really)
The first speech from the Sponsor (February 8, 2022)
Senator Pate gave a speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a national framework to implement a guaranteed livable basic income program in Canada. She argued that poverty is a major social issue that needs to be urgently addressed. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated income inequality and disproportionately affected marginalized groups. A guaranteed livable income could improve health, social, and economic outcomes for low-income Canadians.
The speech outlined how poverty puts people at greater risk of poor health, food insecurity, and homelessness. COVID-19 has spotlighted these vulnerabilities, as lower-income groups have suffered higher mortality rates. Senator Pate cited research showing guaranteed income pilots reduced hospital visits and improved participants’ health. She argued a national program is feasible, building on existing supports like the Canada Child Benefit. Costs could be offset by reducing other programs and realizing savings in areas like healthcare.
There is growing momentum for guaranteed income, with support across party lines. Public opinion also favors it. Senator Pate positioned the bill as responding to decades of calls to action on poverty reduction. She appealed to fellow Senators to stop perpetuating myths about poverty and act boldly to implement this long-overdue policy. The speech was a compelling case for guaranteed income as a powerful tool for promoting equity and dignity.
The Response (April 18, 2023)
Senator MacDonald responded to Senator Pate’s speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a framework for a guaranteed basic income (GBI) program in Canada. He commended Senator Pate’s advocacy for the poor, but expressed concerns about the bill’s lack of detail and fiscal implications.
Senator MacDonald outlined analyses questioning the affordability and sustainability of a GBI program. He cited research suggesting it could cost hundreds of billions annually, require tax increases, and reduce work incentives. Senator MacDonald also noted provincial studies concluding GBI is too costly and ineffective for poverty reduction compared to targeted measures.
Given Canada’s debt and deficits, Senator MacDonald argued the country cannot realistically consider implementing GBI currently. He contended the solution is generating wealth through natural resource development, not expanding welfare states. Senator MacDonald suggested Conservatives could support GBI to replace current programs if fiscal conditions improve under a future Conservative government.
In conclusion, Senator MacDonald maintained Conservatives oppose Bill S-233. While GBI aims are laudable, he believes the bill’s lack of detail and Canada’s finances make it unrealistic presently. He advocated defeating the bill or sending it to committee for further scrutiny.
Discussion last Tuesday (Oct 17)
I’ll put up a summary of the transcript once it becomes available or if I can extract it from the video.
Senator MacDonald outlined analyses questioning the affordability and sustainability of a GBI program. He cited research suggesting it could cost hundreds of billions annually, require tax increases, and reduce work incentives.
Y’know what really increases “work incentives”? Good wages and decent working conditions.
Shitty bosses offering shitty pay at shitty workplaces is the real reason business owners are crying that “nobody wants to work any more”.
Agreed. It’s such a disingenuous argument. It’s the usual casting of poor people as lazy, and what they need is a good lashing to get them to work.
Like… No. People want dignity. People want to feel satisfied in their lives. UBI trials have shown that they use that money to get the life/jobs that they want. They’re just not gonna be forced into shitty jobs as you said. This last bit is the part not said out loud.
I think you are (or maybe I am) misunderstanding what they mean by work incentives. I think they might be referring to the kinda stuff normally referred to as benefits? That said, if the value of an incentive/benefit is being reduced by UBI, then that’s a pretty shit incentive and probably shouldn’t have been an incentive (as opposed to legally mandated) to begin with.
I summarized the two readings of the bill. (Claude AI did, really)
The first speech from the Sponsor (February 8, 2022)
Senator Pate gave a speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a national framework to implement a guaranteed livable basic income program in Canada. She argued that poverty is a major social issue that needs to be urgently addressed. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated income inequality and disproportionately affected marginalized groups. A guaranteed livable income could improve health, social, and economic outcomes for low-income Canadians.
The speech outlined how poverty puts people at greater risk of poor health, food insecurity, and homelessness. COVID-19 has spotlighted these vulnerabilities, as lower-income groups have suffered higher mortality rates. Senator Pate cited research showing guaranteed income pilots reduced hospital visits and improved participants’ health. She argued a national program is feasible, building on existing supports like the Canada Child Benefit. Costs could be offset by reducing other programs and realizing savings in areas like healthcare.
There is growing momentum for guaranteed income, with support across party lines. Public opinion also favors it. Senator Pate positioned the bill as responding to decades of calls to action on poverty reduction. She appealed to fellow Senators to stop perpetuating myths about poverty and act boldly to implement this long-overdue policy. The speech was a compelling case for guaranteed income as a powerful tool for promoting equity and dignity.
The Response (April 18, 2023)
Senator MacDonald responded to Senator Pate’s speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a framework for a guaranteed basic income (GBI) program in Canada. He commended Senator Pate’s advocacy for the poor, but expressed concerns about the bill’s lack of detail and fiscal implications.
Senator MacDonald outlined analyses questioning the affordability and sustainability of a GBI program. He cited research suggesting it could cost hundreds of billions annually, require tax increases, and reduce work incentives. Senator MacDonald also noted provincial studies concluding GBI is too costly and ineffective for poverty reduction compared to targeted measures.
Given Canada’s debt and deficits, Senator MacDonald argued the country cannot realistically consider implementing GBI currently. He contended the solution is generating wealth through natural resource development, not expanding welfare states. Senator MacDonald suggested Conservatives could support GBI to replace current programs if fiscal conditions improve under a future Conservative government.
In conclusion, Senator MacDonald maintained Conservatives oppose Bill S-233. While GBI aims are laudable, he believes the bill’s lack of detail and Canada’s finances make it unrealistic presently. He advocated defeating the bill or sending it to committee for further scrutiny.
Discussion last Tuesday (Oct 17)
I’ll put up a summary of the transcript once it becomes available or if I can extract it from the video.
Y’know what really increases “work incentives”? Good wages and decent working conditions.
Shitty bosses offering shitty pay at shitty workplaces is the real reason business owners are crying that “nobody wants to work any more”.
Agreed. It’s such a disingenuous argument. It’s the usual casting of poor people as lazy, and what they need is a good lashing to get them to work.
Like… No. People want dignity. People want to feel satisfied in their lives. UBI trials have shown that they use that money to get the life/jobs that they want. They’re just not gonna be forced into shitty jobs as you said. This last bit is the part not said out loud.
I think you are (or maybe I am) misunderstanding what they mean by work incentives. I think they might be referring to the kinda stuff normally referred to as benefits? That said, if the value of an incentive/benefit is being reduced by UBI, then that’s a pretty shit incentive and probably shouldn’t have been an incentive (as opposed to legally mandated) to begin with.