Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

Ironically (under a Universal Basic Income program) you’d have to raise taxes on workers -- it would be a wealth transfer to the privileged from the working class people – Conservative Finance critic Pierre Poilievre

 


As I mentioned yesterday, I attended a smaller gathering of Conservatives in Kamloops, which was attended by Kamloops Thompson Cariboo MP Cathy McLeod, and the Conservatives finance critic Pierre Poilievre.

During the question and answer period that followed, I asked Poilievre about the idea of instituting a Universal Basic Income (UBI), being floated by the Liberals ... and what his thoughts were on that. This was his reply:

It’s too soon – it’s difficult to say what they’re going to do. I’ll give you a bit of an overview on the universal basic income issue.

With universal income ... the basic idea is everyone would get a flat income cheque from the government, and depending on the model, that cheque would be clawed back based on your earnings.

The idea originated with a free market economist in the United States named Milton Friedman whose idea was the United States government would get rid of every single social program, and replace it with a cheque in every mailbox – a cheque that would become progressively smaller the more that you worked, so that it would only go to those who needed it.

But if you’re a working-class kid, who actually has a job, working at Subway or as a waiter, you would have your basic income clawed back, based on your earnings ~~ Pierre Poilievre

What we’re hearing now though, is the idea of not only not replacing existing program with a cheque, but stacking that cheque on top of existing programs. In other words, there would be no way to pay for it – other than to keep borrowing and printing money as the government is now doing.


I asked our parliamentary budget officer to give us the cost of a universal basic income, and I said, “Using the pilot project that the Ontario government had created for such a program, which would pay $17,400 per person – or $24,oo a couple – what would it cost the Government of Canada to provide such a program?”

He came back and said it would cost 73 billion dollars.

Now, in a normal year, that would be one quarter of the budget of the government of Canada ... twice what the government of Canada transfers to provinces for health care ... and about three times what it spends on national defense.

And of course, there’s no source of revenue from which to pay for all this free money.

Furthermore, that particular proposal that would actually, ironically, help the affluent people more than it would working class people. The biggest beneficiaries would be the small segment of students whose parents are wealthy, which would mean they wouldn’t have to work (while attending college/university). They would live in the basement of their parents’ home, wouldn’t have to have a job, and they would get the full amount.

But if you’re a working-class kid, who actually has a job, working at Subway or as a waiter, you would have your basic income clawed back, based on your earnings.

In the end -- it would be a program that would be stacked on top of
all of the existing governmental programs. The only way to pay for
that would be a monstrous tax increase ~~ Pierre Poilievre

So, ironically the kid from a wealthy family would get a lot more than the working-class kid, under this program. And, to pay for it you have to raise taxes on workers, so it would be a wealth transfer to the privileged from the working class people.

My view is this; when ever government promises you money -- without work -- in the end they will be giving you work without money, because you’re going to have to pay for it on your taxes. And when your income taxes go up, it effectively reduced your take home pay.


So, it reduces earned income and replaces it with unearned income.

I believe we need a system that rewards work, and effort, and enterprise ... rather than try the tranquilize the population with money for nothing.

 

I DID ASK A FOLLOW-UP as I wondered if the Universal Basic Income would be a supplement for existing provincial programs, such as social assistance or disability income – in other words, additional income on top of those things. This was his response:

So, the truth is we don’t know; the answer is, it could be.

You’d have to get the provinces to eliminate their income support programs, and agree to let the federal government replace those programs, with a basic income.

You’d have to find a way to convince the provinces that the only way that the federal government could ultimately pay for it would be to stop transferring as much money to the provinces.

You can’t do both. The government of Canada could not transfer money through the social transfer to pay for welfare at a provincial level, and then also send welfare cheques from Ottawa.

So, this is the complexity that comes along with the idea of universal basic income. Right now, we have something like 58 different support programs across this country. On the federal level there’s OAS, GIS, CPP, CPP Disability, EI ... and that’s just a few. Then at the provincial level you’ve got disability programs ... housing programs ... drugs plans ... etc, etc.

Again, the government of Canada would have to secure agreement from lower level governments to replace all of their programs with one single federal one.

I don’t think that’s realistic – and so in the end -- it would be a program that would be stacked on top of all of the existing governmental programs ...

... the only way to pay for that would be a monstrous tax increase.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BC’s Forestry Decline Is a Policy Failure, Not a Market Reality -- Forestry Critic Calls for Accountability and Urgent Policy Reset

Conservative Party of BC Forestry Critic, and Kamloops - North Thompson MLA,  Ward Stamer As the Truck Loggers Association convention begins today, BC Conservative Forestry Critic Ward Stamer says British Columbia’s forestry crisis is the result of government mismanagement, not market forces, and that an urgent policy reset is needed to restore certainty, sustainability, and accountability. “For generations, forestry supported families and communities across BC,” said Stamer.  “Today, mills are closing, contractors are parking equipment, and families are being forced to leave home, not because the resource is gone, but because policy has failed.” Government data shows timber shipment values dropped by more than half a billion dollars in the past year, with harvest levels falling by roughly 50 per cent in just four years. At the same time, prolonged permitting timelines, unreliable fibre access, outdated forest inventories, and rising costs have made long-term planning impossib...
Post a Comment
Read more

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...
Post a Comment
Read more

Eby government signs another land-use agreement, as they say one thing and do another, during DRIPA chaos

While promising to fix DRIPA, the Eby government continues to quietly sign binding land-use agreements that fundamentally alter how Crown land is governed in British Columbia. On January 15, 2026, the government signed four ministerial orders advancing the Gwa’ni Land Use Planning Project with the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, amending the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan and changing how more than 166,000 hectares of Crown land can be accessed, developed, and managed. “This is Land Act reform by stealth,” said Critic for Indigenous Relations Scott McInnis. “British Columbians already rejected these changes once. In 2024, public backlash forced the NDP to pull its Land Act amendments. Instead of listening, this government has gone underground, signing individual deals behind closed doors, just like we’ve already seen in places such as Squamish, Teẑtan Biny, and across Northwest BC.” “The Premier admits DRIPA ( the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act) is creating ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Labels

Show more