Guaranteed Liveable Income

Guaranteed Liveable Income

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed how many Canadians live in precarious conditions and still lack a basic safety net to protect them in times of financial difficulty.

Over the past weeks, the Government of Canada has introduced the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), a taxable benefit of $2,000 a month for up to 4 months to eligible workers who have lost their income due to COVID-19. Throughout its rollout, however, the government has been unable or unwilling to ensure that CERB will cover all those that it was intended to protect, and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates that about one-third of Canadians are still left without access to either Employment Insurance (EI) or CERB. Many groups – contract workers, part-time workers, temporary foreign workers, students and seniors in need – don’t qualify for the program, or for EI, and the government has been left scrambling to plug holes, with a hodgepodge of fixes being announced almost daily.

Given the virtually limitless number of different employment, unemployment and underemployment circumstances in which Canadians find themselves, it is unlikely that this piecemeal approach will ever succeed in providing comprehensive coverage. What we are left with is a confusing, ad hoc, case-by-case system that guarantees some Canadians will unnecessarily or unintentionally fall through the cracks.

Instead of plugging holes one-by-one, the solution is to create a comprehensive benefit: Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI). GLI would provide every Canadian with a basic revenue source, ensuring that people can cover basic expenses such as food and accommodation. It would be available with few or no restrictions and be sufficient to protect Canadians from the types of financial catastrophes that many find themselves confronting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that GLI would be comprehensive, it will also be simpler and therefore less expensive to administrate (usually one of the greatest costs of social programs).

While it would guarantee basic income security to all, Guaranteed Livable Income would offer the greatest security to the most vulnerable Canadians: precarious workers, the under-employed and the homeless. It would also help workers in the energy industry, a sector that is particularly vulnerable to market shocks.

During the COVID-19 crisis, the concept of GLI has gained traction in other countries. Recently, Spain became the first European country to announce a plan to introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) to help families during the pandemic, with the intention that UBI become a permanent instrument that would serve as a safety net for the most vulnerable. The Scottish National Party and the Green Party UK have both called for the introduction of UBI in the United Kingdom. Italy, the Netherlands, Finland and Kenya have all trialed GLI models.

The current focus must be on getting urgent financial relief into the hands of Canadians, which means extending CERB eligibility to cover all Canadians that are currently unemployed. In tandem, work should begin on investigating the various GLI models to determine what would work best in Canadian contexts, so that it can be in place before we confront our next emergency or structural upheaval.


Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Donald Warner
    I support the concept of GLI, but the implementation matters. I would not support paying for GLI through increased debt. The red party has been way too liberal about spending money that doesn’t exist. We need to be serious about what Canadians need to give up to make GLI a reality. We also need to be serious about how much income is perceived as liveable.

    I’m also interested to understand how GLI would apply across regions with vastly different costs of living. Tracking cost of living indices would require a nightmare of bureaucracy as bad as what GLI is trying to avoid and introduce an easy way to cheat the system. Is it socially acceptable to apply a universal amount and let people relocate based on their individual personal and economic circumstances?
  • Don McLeod
    Guaranteed Livable Income is meant for all Canadians. Already noted are social programs that it would replace. Cost savings, inefficiencies for delivery and inequities would be removed. The $100 billion price would be reduced by all the money being paid out now and associated costs. Living with dignity and taking Canadians out of poverty also has positive affects of reducing budgetary needs in many other areas. Mental health issues would be reduced. What a great way to help all Canadians!
  • Matthew Casselman
  • Carolyn Herbert
    Dan asked how this could be paid. I suggest that we point out the current cost of health and emergency services and policing costs and the cost of maintaining EI, GIS, OAS bureaucracy and how much would be saved by eliminating these with their entitlement barriers, as well as the provincial welfare programs. If all these were eliminated over reasonable time, and have the CRA adjusted to manage the monthly cheques in the same way that the child benefit is done, then it would only require provinces to increase social workers and supports for people with mental incapacity to manage this new income wisely. Mental health services are minimal now because provincial budgets are spent on the delivery of the shelter subsidies and disability/welfare programs. Dignity is lost in the bureaucracies. But we must be sure the GLI is a truly “living” amount, not just a complicated top-up to other poverty-maintaining program as now.
  • Dan Favarger
    I love the concept of a GLI. It is the natural progression from job loss expected from robotics and AI. Properly administered, it could be the biggest boon to humanity since the industrial revolution. The downside is a GLI price tag starts around $100B. This is about 1/3 of our entire national budget. The big white elephant in the room needs to know what’s your plan to raise this additional money.