1/ This is my second thread on Basic Income, expanding on the reactions my first thread elicited. From the get-go, I should have made clear that I am NOT interested in a dogmatic, idealized, pie-in-the-sky version of BI. I am interested in what could be adopted in the short-term.

2/ The current crisis, and the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic with CERB, CEWS, CESB, etc. provides basic income with its first genuine window of opportunity ever in Canada. What is this window of opportunity?

3/ The federal government has acknowledged implicitly that to live decently requires around $2,000 per month. By comparison, the maximum OAS/GIS benefits provide only 75% of this amount, and social assistance, less than half.

4/ The population, by and large, have been accepting of these support programs, but critical of the restrictions and the apparent arbitrary fashion they have been developed and implemented. In short, they want such transfers to be fair for everyone.

5/ As progressives, we have a choice to make: Option A is to call for a pie-in-the-sky Universal Basic Income, that will require convincing Canadians to scrap social programs (already a hard-sell) AND jacking up taxes by 60 to 70% over and above current levels.

6/ (Note 1: Suggesting to print money or to completely reform Canada’s monetary policy to implement UBI is fun to dream about, but proposing a complex reform to implement basic income is a sure fire way to kill the possibility in the short term.)

7/ (Note 2: I might have some free time this week: I might very well do a thread on monetary policy, just for the fun of it! For now, you should see that implementing BI as a complement to our social safety net can be done within the current fiscal and monetary system)

8/ Option B consists in setting a clear goal, like eliminating poverty, and calling for the government to guarantee that no household in Canada will ever dispose of less than the poverty level, which varies roughly from $18,000 to $25,000 for a single person.

9/ I insist: there is a possibility to get BI in THIS Parliament. It is clear to me that to make this a reality, Canadian progressives have to rally behind Option B. A Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) is the way to go, not a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

10/ Let me address a few questions and comments from the last thread. I keep repeating that words matter. You are not calling for a Universal Basic Income if you are not pleading for everyone to get a cheque, regardless of their income level.

11/ The word “Universal” means everyone gets it. Not that everyone has a chance to qualify for it. And why does it matter so much?

12/ During my leadership race, and afterwards, I have seen many progressives oppose BI because they link it to UBI, which, in turn, is widely seen as a right-wing Trojan Horse to dismantle the social safety net. Such progressives would support a GMI and elimination of poverty.

13/ Instead of fighting on the Basic Income side, they oppose it, thus dividing progressive forces. But we cannot afford such division if we want to take advantage of this window of opportunity. We don’t have time for months or years of debate to convince them.

14/ To convince Canadians that basic income is part of the “New Normal” post-COVID, messaging will be key. Branding will be key.

15/ If you're a Canadian voter, which option is more attractive:
(1) For $28-35 billion a year, we can eliminate poverty.
(2) For $500-600 billion a year (and a doubling of your taxes), we can give $2,000 a month to everyone, including millionaires and billionaires?

16/ I was told I had to consider the intangible benefits of a UBI. I have, and I agree: studies show that it leads to better health and safer streets. Yet, I support GMI and oppose UBI. Why? Because GMI will bring these same benefits as UBI, at 10% of the cost.

17/ It was mentioned that we should look into a Universal Basic Services Guarantee rather than basic income. While the idea is laudable and that we should work to improve our social services, fighting for them doesn’t exclude implementing basic income.

18/ A basic income is meant to complement our social services, not to replace them, to patch up the cracks in our mosaic in which the vulnerable fall through. The federal government can provide this complement with a basic income.

19/ The federal government cannot provide a Universal Basic Services Guarantee because we don’t have a single safety net: we have 10, administered by the provinces. Anyone who knows how federal-provincial negotiations work, understands the quasi-impossibility of the task.

20/ Negotiations with provinces to ensure they don’t cut social services after implementation of a federal basic income would be much easier than negotiating federal transfers to provinces in exchange for constraining and conditions for delivery.

21/ In conclusion, if we continue fighting for a “universal basic income” rather than fighting for the elimination of poverty through a basic income, we will lose. If we get bogged down by technical details rather than fighting for common principles, we will lose.

22/ If we show how a BI will ensure artists will be create without fear of abject poverty, or entrepreneurs will be able to create new business without the fear of a failure that will bring them into abject poverty, we win.