Skip to main content

Noralou Roos is director of EvidenceNetwork.ca and professor in the University of Manitoba's Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine.

Professor Evelyn Forget is a health economist at the University of Manitoba. Her re-examination of Dauphin's MINCOME and ongoing work on Guaranteed Annual Income is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Could the Guaranteed Annual Income, once considered a radical notion, now be an idea whose time has come?

Story continues below advertisement

The Dutch city of Utrecht recently announced an experiment to determine whether introducing a basic income produces a more effective society. Joseph Ceci, Alberta's new Finance Minister, proposed a guaranteed income program last year on the election campaign trail. Both Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi and Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson have touted similar programs. Now, medical officers of health and boards of health members across Ontario are officially calling for provincial and federal governments to bring in a basic income guarantee.

So what exactly is a Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI)?

GAI has actually been supported by generations of economists and welfare theorists, on the left and right. One version works like a refundable tax credit. If an individual has no income from any source at all, they receive a basic entitlement. As earned income increases, the benefit declines, but less than proportionately. As a result, low-income earners receive partial benefits so that they aren't worse off than they would have been if they had quit their jobs and relied solely on income assistance.

This means that there is always an incentive to work, and people who work are always better off than they would be if they didn't work.

So why are such a broad group of people – finance ministers, mayors and medical officers of health – pushing such a program? Poverty, substantial evidence now tells us, is one of the best predictors of poor health. And poor health costs everyone.

Research in Hamilton demonstrated that residents of the Ontario city's wealthy West Mountain neighbourhood lived, on average, to 86.3 years of age, while average age at death for residents of one of the poorest Hamilton neighbourhoods was only 65.5 years – a shocking gap.

Way back in the 1970s, Manitoba tried implementing a GAI in Winnipeg and in the small town of Dauphin.

Story continues below advertisement

In Dauphin, everyone was eligible to participate. A family with no income from other sources would receive 60 per cent of the Statistics Canada low-income cutoff, which varied by family size.

Every dollar received from other sources would reduce benefits by 50 cents. Important for an agriculturally dependent town with a lot of self-employment, the GAI offered stability and predictability. Sudden illness, disability or unpredictable economic events would no longer be financially devastating. The project ran for four years, ending in 1979.

So did the GAI produce anything to report? Remarkably, even this four-year program had strong positive results. Dauphin high school students were more likely to remain in school than had been true in the years before the GAI started or after it stopped.

The health of town residents also improved, with fewer hospitalizations (an 8.5-per-cent reduction), specifically for mental illness, accidents and injuries.

So how much would introducing a GAI across Canada cost?

According to several Queen's University professors, the cost of replacing social assistance (which includes welfare and disability support) and Old Age Security (which includes a top-up for low-income seniors), plus providing every adult with an annual income of $20,000 and children with an income guarantee of $6,000, would be $40-billion. The Fraser Institute calculates the total cost of Canada's current income support system (payout plus administrative costs) at $185-billion in 2013.

Story continues below advertisement

Our own estimates, which build on existing social programs, range from a gross annual cost of $17-billion for a program that (in today's dollars) is slightly more generous than was offered in Dauphin, to a "Cadillac" version costing $58-billion that would guarantee everyone a minimum income equal to the low-income cutoff and pay at least some benefits to people earning well above the low-income cutoff.

The cost of a GAI depends on how generous it is, how quickly benefits are phased out with additional income and how existing social programs are affected.

Some of these costs, of course, would be partially recovered from the additional taxes paid by recipients, as well as the lower costs faced by so many other social programs that are driven by poverty. Hospital care alone, for example, cost Canada $63.5-billion in 2014.

Bottom line, whether it's our calculations or those done by other organizations, a GAI is definitely doable. And it is clear that the potential benefits are substantial.

Maybe it's time for the rest of Canada to at least look to what Alberta is saying and focus on the health, educational and financial benefits that the Guaranteed Annual Income might offer.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter