On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bovey, for the second reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, last week many of us stood in this place to pay tribute to the victims of the horrible murders in James Smith Cree Nation and Weldon in my home province of Saskatchewan. However, the victims of this terrible attack deserve action, not just words.

Last weekend, Global News produced a lengthy and alarming article in which we learned that Skye Sanderson, the wife of one of the perpetrators, called 911 to report her husband, Damien, and his brother Myles 24 hours before the murders began. According to the article, Skye believed “the only way to stop them from doing something ’stupid’ was to get them both locked up.”

The article further reads:

. . . her pleas fell on deaf ears. RCMP members arrived and returned her car to her but didn’t do enough to locate Damien and Myles — despite the pair’s outstanding arrest warrants.

Twenty-four hours later . . . 10 people were dead, 18 people were injured, and the Sanderson brothers were prime suspects in one of the worst mass killings in Canada’s history.

The RCMP refuses to answer questions about this shocking new information. Senator Gold, will the Trudeau government demand that the RCMP provide the answers that these victims, their families, the people of Saskatchewan and the whole country deserve?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I’ll have to make inquiries in response to your question, but I would say, senator, first of all, that one can never express their condolences and sympathy too often to the families and communities who are still grieving. I know that’s shared by everyone here.

Policing in Indigenous communities is critical. It can mean the difference between prevention and tragedy, and that’s why the government is co-developing legislation to recognize First Nations and Indigenous policing as an essential service.

The government is scaling up its efforts. It is providing over $181 million for Indigenous policing services in 426 Indigenous communities across Canada. This is all part of its effort. Nothing can take away the loss of life or the tragedy that occurred. One hopes that this is a step in the right direction.

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, there is no way that these victims should have to wait for months, and potentially years, for answers to these questions. Myles and Damien Sanderson are dead, and they won’t be judged in a public criminal trial. Some questions about this case will require a more detailed response and process, but there are other questions that need to be answered now. The entire province of Saskatchewan was terrorized for days by these killings. The public needs reassurance and peace, and the RCMP has a responsibility to give Canadians confidence in their own safety.

When will we get these critical answers, and what immediate steps is the Minister of Public Safety taking with the RCMP to ensure that this never happens again?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, as Canadians are looking at yet another hike in interest rates between now and the end of October, in an attempt to get skyrocketing “JustinFlation” under some sort of control, your government continues to defend the Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem, despite his abysmal performance.

I’m sure you are going to give me the talking points about how we need to respect our institutions and the independence of the Bank of Canada. But considering that we have a Prime Minister who has acknowledged that he doesn’t spend his time thinking about monetary policy, and we have a Minister of Finance who — in this chamber less than a year ago — said, in response to my question, that inflation isn’t a real concern, and considering that the Bank of Canada also recently weighed in on social media in support for the partisan agenda of this current Trudeau government, don’t you think, government leader, that if you don’t fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, at the bare minimum you should ask for his resignation?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I’m not going to give you talking points, honourable senator. It’s an important question about how any government and, indeed, this institution relates to its independent institutions. It is hard not to resist the observation that all of the premises buried in your question sounded very much like talking points that we have heard in the other place.

The fact remains that for more than three decades, the Bank of Canada has pursued an independent monetary policy, and that’s the appropriate way in which this should be handled in a democratic society. It is also the case, as every credible economist and every credible observer knows, that the inflation that we are suffering in Canada — and we are suffering, people are suffering, there is no question about that — is not created simply by Justin Trudeau and this government. It is a complicated function of worldwide phenomena.

If we are to be a serious chamber of sober second thought, as opposed to simply a place for snappy — the alliteration now escapes me. If we are going to be serious, as we are supposed to be serious, then I will continue to answer factually, as I am endeavouring to do in this case.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, how far is your government willing to go to continue to allow “JustinFlation” and soaring interest rates to skyrocket? Government leader, these are not talking points. Your talking points might be talking points, but I’m talking on behalf of Canadians who are actually out there dealing with egg prices, milk prices, grocery store prices and trying to feed their families.

At the end of the day, the question I have for you is a very simple one: When are we going to take our responsibility very seriously and hold somebody in this Parliament to account for this dismal performance? If it is not the Governor of the Bank of Canada, maybe it’s the Prime Minister, or maybe it’s the Minister of Finance. Whom do you hold responsible for this mess?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 64, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding litigation.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 101, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding court cases involving veterans.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 143, dated March 30, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Housakos, regarding Canadian offices and embassies abroad.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 149, dated April 26, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding counterfeit products.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 163, dated May 19, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Francis, regarding record suspensions for cannabis possession offences.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, the online streaming act currently before the Senate provides a useful and rare opportunity for us to look at the Broadcasting Act as a whole to see what improvements can be made. To that end, I have three major concerns that we can fix as we take this opportunity to review the Broadcasting Act.

My first issue of concern relates to the requirement in the Broadcasting Act that the CBC should “reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.”

Honourable senators, you have heard me speak in the past about the actions of the CBC in the early days of the COVID pandemic when it failed to serve the needs of the regions. On March 18, 2020, which, as you will recall, was a time of no small uncertainty and worry, the broadcaster announced the suspension of local evening news programs.

Now, I have already described the circumstances of Prince Edward Island that made this decision particularly unfortunate: the lack of any alternate source of local television news, as CBC’s “Compass” is the only television news program produced in the province; the fact that Prince Edward Island has some of the slowest internet and worst coverage in the country; and the large proportion of people who identify as seniors. But there is a broader issue at play. The public has a right to expect that their public broadcaster will keep them informed at all times, but especially during an emergency like the COVID pandemic.

Honourable senators, in a time of crisis, Prince Edward Islanders were abandoned by CBC Television as a direct result of a decision made at CBC headquarters in Toronto. To be clear, CBC local radio and television broadcasts form an essential service in Prince Edward Island that must continue to receive the support and funding necessary for it to perform its vital function.

In spite of that, once the CBC had decided to cut local news service, there was no formal mechanism to compel them to reverse their decision. They eventually backed down in the face of public outrage, but there was no governmental or regulatory authority that could have either prevented the cuts in the first place or forced the reinstatement of local newscasts. This, even though the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission — the body that regulates the CBC — acknowledged that in cancelling local broadcasts without prior CRTC approval, the broadcaster was in violation of its licence agreement, which committed the CBC to broadcast “at least seven hours of Canadian local programming per week.” The only exceptions are special sporting events or statutory holidays. Moreover, the CRTC noted that “the CBC cannot reduce the level of local programming under seven hours without Commission approval following a public process.”

None of that happened: no public process, no approval.

The current provisions of the Broadcasting Act afford the CRTC very little in the way of powers when it comes to enforcing its agreements and regulations on the CBC. For example, under section 25(1), if the CRTC determines that the CBC has acted in contravention of its licence agreement, the CRTC’s course of action is limited:

. . . the Commission shall forward to the Minister a report setting out the circumstances of the alleged contravention or failure, the findings of the Commission and any observations or recommendations of the Commission in connection therewith.

Elsewhere, in section 24(2), the Broadcasting Act states that the commission may not suspend or revoke the CBC’s broadcast licence, “except on application of or with the consent of the Corporation.”

Think about that for a moment: A penalty can only be imposed with the consent or, better yet, at the request of the CBC. This casts into doubt any concept of enforcement. If the CRTC is to act as a true regulatory body vis-à-vis the CBC, there must be some teeth behind the licence agreement.

Part 3 of the Broadcasting Act deals with the establishment and operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, including its finances and revenues. This relates to the second issue I wish to raise: that of the use of so-called branded or sponsored content by the CBC. Put simply, this is advertising that tries not to look like advertising but rather appears to be news. I noticed a print example of this a few years ago as part of my work on overseas tax evasion. In February and March of 2017, a number of very positive articles appeared in newspapers and online across Canada bearing titles like “Federal programs in place to address offshore tax avoidance and evasion” and “How Canada is cracking down on offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.” It is likely the best press the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, ever received.

However, as it turned out, the CRA didn’t so much receive that press as produced and paid for it themselves. The Canada Revenue Agency later admitted that it paid almost $300,000 to place these so-called articles in six print and digital newspapers. This sponsored content did not come from reporters but was instead produced by writers hired by a company paid by CRA to produce stories favourable to the agency.

Unable to earn any positive media for their well-known incompetence in fighting overseas tax evasion, they decided to buy some positive media coverage and try to pass it off as legitimate news, which is the problem inherent in sponsored content. It is why I object to the CBC, through its marketing arm Tandem, attempting to incorporate such content into its digital news platform. That initiative has proven controversial with over 500 current and former employees urging the broadcaster to uphold what it once described as the absolute church-and-state separation of advertising and editorial content.

If a private broadcaster and newspaper want to conduct business in that way, that’s their decision. But the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a different entity with a mandate that goes beyond the bottom line, and it should act accordingly.

The third issue relates to CBC staff. Section 44 of the Broadcasting Act grants the CBC the right to employ such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the conduct of its business and pay them at such rates of remuneration as the board of directors deem fit. I have no quarrel with any of that, but I do have a concern about transparency. As a public broadcaster largely funded by taxpayers, the CBC has a greater obligation than private broadcasters to be open about how it spends that money.

One area in which the broadcaster could improve is that of salaries for senior management and on-air personnel. The CBC provides some information about what salaries it pays, but very little and only in the most general terms. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is to compare the CBC with its British counterpart, the British Broadcasting Corporation, or BBC. Since 2017 — and I’ll come back to that in a moment — the British Broadcasting Corporation has released the names and salaries of its highest-paid on-air talent, including news readers. Currently, they provide the employee’s name, the program they appear on and the individual salaries to within £5,000 — about C$7,000.

By contrast, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation rarely provides an average salary for all employees within a C$50,000 salary band. So, for example, while we know that Nick Robinson at the BBC earns between £295,000 and £300,000 to host the BBC “Today” show, we only know that five CBC staff earn between C$250,000 and C$300,000 with an average salary of C$342,000 — no names, no programs and, more importantly, no information on gender. That last part is significant.

You will recall I said that the BBC only instituted this policy in 2017, and even then it did so with great reluctance. Their key objection was that if other broadcasters knew what they were paying their talent, they would lure them away with better offers. The BBC operates in a competitive market, and the BBC said at the time that this will not make it easier for them to retain the talent the public loves. That was the decision of their director general in 2016.

But what the release of salary information in the U.K. uncovered was not so much a discrepancy between the BBC and private broadcasters as the sizable gap between what the BBC was paying its male and female talent. Does anyone care to guess who was making more? The BBC has made strides to remedy that in the intervening years. One on-air personality was immediately called into the office and given a significant raise just before the information went public, having been there for 12 years only to find out her co-host was making almost double. I’m not saying the same gap exists within the CBC but, without knowing the facts, who is to say?

For these reasons, and because the concerns I have raised are not covered by the legislation before us, I shall be proposing amendments to this bill that would achieve the following.

The first is that the CRTC should impose a penalty of $2 million per day in the event of the cancellation of any local TV newscast by the CBC without meeting the conditions of their broadcasting licence, which, among others, include public hearings and approval from the CRTC. The amount of that penalty would be paid to local libraries in the area where the CBC newscast was cancelled.

Second is that the CBC should not be allowed to compete with privately owned media corporations by running sponsored or branded content disguised as journalism on any of their platforms.

The third is that the name and total compensation, including salary, of all staff at the CBC receiving compensation greater than that of a Canadian senator should be made public. After all, a senator’s taxpayer-funded compensation is disclosed and, in the spirit of transparency, so should those employees of the CBC.

Colleagues, I believe the amendments I am proposing will lead to a more open, responsive and accountable national broadcaster, which would be to the benefit of all Canadians. Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on December 9, 2021, by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning court fees.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 22, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Bernard, concerning the Anti-Racism Secretariat.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 31, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning transparency of trials.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 31, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning transparency of trials.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 26, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Housakos, concerning ArriveCAN.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 1, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, concerning the public inquiry into the Portapique shooting.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 7, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Plett, concerning missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Claude Carignan on December 9, 2021)

The Parole Board of Canada is aware of the concern with respect to costs in the Federal Court. These costs have not been collected, and the Parole Board of Canada is considering its position.

The litigation in this matter is ongoing in the Federal Court of Appeal and the Parole Board of Canada is not seeking its costs in the related appeals.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Wanda Thomas Bernard on March 22, 2022)

The Black Entrepreneurship Program is a total investment of $265M over four years (starting in 2020-21), of which $130M is an investment from the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) and the remaining $135M is the Government’s contribution.

Of the government’s $135 million contribution, $30 million has been earmarked to initiate the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund (BELF). As of March 25, 2022, $20M (of the $30M earmarked for BELF) has been disbursed to the Federation of African Canadian Economics (FACE), and more than $10 million of that has been loaned to black-owned businesses across Canada. FACE are the administrators of BELF in partnership with BDC. FACE has autonomy over the management of the loan fund and any questions about the BELF’s beneficiaries should be directed to them.

On December 13, 2021, the Government awarded $5M to Carleton University Sprott School of Business and Dream Legacy Foundation to establish the Black Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub (BEKH). The governance structure of BEKH includes a Lead Hub and Regional Hubs ensuring coverage across Canada.

The National Ecosystem Fund, delivered by the regional development agencies, have awarded funding to 40 organizations across the country which represents nearly $95M. The List of Ecosystem Fund Recipients identifies recipients by province.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Claude Carignan on March 31, 2022)

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada cannot comment further given the Court of Appeal of Quebec’s decision ordering the redaction of any information that may tend to identify a confidential informer. The Court of Appeal is currently being asked to reconsider its decision on that question. As such, it would be inappropriate and premature at this time to provide any further comments about this case.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Claude Carignan on March 31, 2022)

The Court of Appeal of Quebec has issued an order preventing the public disclosure of certain information that would tend to identify confidential police sources. In doing so, the Court attempted to balance well-established legal principles concerning open court and those applying to the protection of that kind of confidential information. Several applications have already been filed at the Court of Appeal of Quebec to reconsider its decision concerning what information can be publicly disclosed. We will follow these proceedings. In the meanwhile, we will respect the Court’s current order.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Leo Housakos on April 26, 2022)

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is responsible for ArriveCAN compliance decisions while the CBSA works to implement and operationalize the measures put in place by PHAC.

ArriveCAN collects contact, health and travel information to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to expedite processing at the border. It significantly reduces the time Border Services Officers (BSO) spend questioning travellers about public health obligations and decreases processing time at ports of entry by identifying vaccination status, which would otherwise have to be done manually.

Travellers without smartphones or mobile data can submit their information online through any computing device. Travellers can ask another person for assistance (a friend or relative) to submit their information if they are unable to use ArriveCAN. They do not need to be travelling together. Once they have submitted the travellers’ information, they should print the receipt page or take a screenshot and provide it to the traveller to show the BSO. If necessary and operationally feasible, BSOs facilitate the process of travellers’ digital ArriveCAN submissions by providing the option to complete upon arrival.

Canadian citizens, permanent residents and those registered under the Indian Act cannot be refused entry for failing to complete ArriveCAN.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on June 1, 2022)

Canada does not direct the Mass Casualty Commission (Commission). Decisions related to witness accommodation requests lie solely with the Commission.

On May 24, 2022, the Commission issued decisions related to six requests, from the National Police Federation and Attorney General of Canada, for accommodations for subpoenaed witnesses. Witness accommodation requests are almost always based on physical or psychological health needs. One request was not granted, two witnesses participated on a panel, one witness participated via Zoom, and two witnesses participated via closed Zoom sessions with Participant questions posed by Commission counsel. Therefore, participants, including victims’ families, had the opportunity to have their questions answered. Further questions on accommodations should be directed to the Commission.

The Commission is making mental health services available to individuals who may need access to counselling or other services, including by establishing a mental health unit to ensure support is available. Additionally, Nova Scotia has a Victim Services Unit, for which costs related to the inquiry are shared between the province and Canada. The Commission will continue to proceed with a trauma-informed response.

Questions on the application of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to the inquiry should be directed to the Commission.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Donald Neil Plett on June 7, 2022)

The Government of Canada is committed to working with other jurisdictions to explore collaborative methods for strengthening investigations and sharing best practices. Following the release of the National Inquiry’s Interim Report, the federal government invested $9.6 million over five years to create the National Office of Investigative Standards and Practices (NOISP) within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The NOISP acts as an internal centre of expertise, coordination and national oversight for high profile and major case investigations. A significant proportion of the NOISP’s work focuses on cases involving Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people and other vulnerable populations who are overrepresented as victims of crime in RCMP jurisdictions. In particular, the NOISP has funded two positions dedicated to reviewing historical and new investigations. These members are also building partnerships with Indigenous communities to improve communication in the case of homicide investigations and are informing Major Crime Unit members on positive practices when working in Indigenous communities.

The RCMP has taken measures to improve policies and procedures for missing person and sudden death investigations to improve quality, oversight and communication with families. Further policy changes affecting investigative practices include developing training on trauma-informed approaches and expanding training on human trafficking to include Indigenous awareness.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bovey, for the second reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: I have a question for you.

You support a pilot project like the one proposed by Senator Eggleton, which I voted for at the time. It was very focused.

I would like your thoughts on this. Bill S-233 is about developing a framework to implement basic income for all Canadians 18 and over. Don’t you think that has financial implications? Does this kind of bill not necessarily push us to really study the issue? The indirect financial implications alone may disallow this bill because, in law, you can’t do indirectly what you can’t do directly, and this bill is about developing a framework.

[English]

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Inquiry withdrawn.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the adoption of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada, with amendments and observations), presented in the Senate on June 20, 2022.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, I would like to offer a modest intervention on Bill S-233. I support sending Bill S-233 to committee as soon as possible so we can have an informed discussion about the complex issues around basic income. Whether you support a basic income or not, I think it is fair to say that there is growing interest in the idea. Earlier this month, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities voted in favour of a resolution calling on the federal government to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

However, the problem with the public debate — and here I am setting aside the conspiratorial end of basic income critics — is that advocates and opponents are often debating different versions of basic income and hence talking past each other. If a Senate committee can clarify the issues and shed light on the varieties of basic income proposals, that will be a positive contribution on an important public policy issue regardless of whether this bill is adopted. To this extent, my speech is about what I think the most important issues are and what I would suggest are some of the questions that a committee should be asking.

The fundamental question is this: What is a basic income for? Most advocates of basic income, including many senators, argue that it is to eliminate poverty. Poverty is an income-based measure and as such can be solved, in theory, by augmenting the incomes of those who fall below a defined cut-off level. That is why so many anti-poverty activists support basic income. The question is how to identify people whose incomes are below the poverty line and to ensure that the income supplemented to those individuals is provided on a timely basis.

There are basically two approaches. The first is to provide a basic income to everyone and then claw back a percentage when reported incomes exceed the cut-off. The second is to target income supplements to vulnerable groups with varying conditions attached. The former is what might be called a classical approach to basic income, since it is provided to everyone, whereas the latter might be called targeted basic income, or social assistance, and it’s roughly the way the system currently works.

If our goal is poverty alleviation, which approach works better? Well, for any given level of poverty reduction, the answer is the latter — the targeted approach — for the obvious reason that it is directed at only the people who are below the poverty line and not “wasted,” if you will, on those who are not poor. This is not to say that targeted social assistance, which is the status quo, has eliminated poverty; it hasn’t. But if we are to pour substantial new resources into poverty alleviation and have a choice between the two approaches, based on the criteria of efficiency, the targeted social assistance approach wins, hands down. That is the conclusion reached by the expert panel commissioned by the B.C. government in 2018, which released its study in 2020. They rejected basic income in favour of expanding targeted income supplements and social programs.

Basic income advocates will counter that the solution to the wastefulness of a basic income is to claw back any income earned above the cut-off. This is technically known as the benefit reduction rate. The higher the benefit reduction rate, the more efficient the basic income in targeting people under the poverty line. A very high benefit reduction rate, however, runs counter to one of the key principles behind the basic income, which is to not disincentivize people from earning additional income. There is a trade-off between the efficiency of a basic income program and the disincentive effects of clawbacks.

To underscore the point of how inefficient a basic income program would be as a remedy for poverty per se, the B.C. panel authors created an online interactive table where you can choose your preferred basic income amount and your preferred benefit reduction rate to generate a scenario showing the cost of the program and its impact on poverty reduction. Colleagues, if you like spreadsheets, you can have hours of fun on this one. What you will find is that the lower the benefit reduction rate, the more expensive the program and the less efficient it will be in reducing poverty. For example, a basic income of $20,000 for an individual in B.C. with zero benefit reduction would cost $51 billion and would reduce poverty incidence by about 7,000 people per billion dollars. Compare that with the cost of $11 billion for a reduction of 32,000 people in poverty per billion dollars at the benefit reduction rate of 75%.

Opponents of a basic income, the B.C. panel included, argue that a maximalist approach to basic income, one with little or no benefit reduction, is too costly, especially if a province were to attempt basic income on its own. This objection, however, is addressed in a new study from the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, which concludes that a federally funded basic income could be both effective and affordable, which is a finding that was already foreshadowed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in a report a couple of years ago. According to the Calgary authors, a federal program could create more fiscal capacity for the provinces to provide other cash and in-kind social supports, allowing for greater provincial benefit targeting.

I support the principle that proposed solutions to policy problems should be cost-effective. That is different from saying that they should not be costly. Solving poverty could well be a very costly public investment, but if our goal is the eradication of poverty, and it is costly to do so, so be it. But we should make every effort to find the most cost-efficient solution for the problem at hand.

This is why I think the case for basic income cannot be based solely on poverty alleviation. If near-term poverty eradication is the only objective, I agree with the B.C. number crunchers that targeted programs focused, for example, on youth aging out of care, the disabled, or single parents with or without children are likely a better approach. But if the policy objective is broader, and it includes social and economic indicators such as health care, human capital, the criminal justice system, volunteering, creative activities and entrepreneurship, the calculus of a basic income program could be much more favourable.

The B.C. panel ruled out these second-order benefits because they focused their study narrowly on poverty alleviation. They did not give any serious consideration to the broader benefits of basic income and whether these benefits might offset the considerable cost of a basic income program with a low benefit reduction rate.

The B.C. panel also offers a philosophical argument against basic income, which our colleague Senator Bellemare has also advanced. It is premised on the primal importance — even duty — of paid work and on a strict view of reciprocity in social relations. This normative framework is associated with the writings of John Rawls and Elizabeth Anderson on the meaning of a just society. It is a view of the world which values what might be called “participation income” over “basic income,” and it assumes the economy offers dignified participation opportunities along the lines of what politicians like to call “decent, middle-class jobs.”

The reality is that there are a lot of non-decent jobs in our market economy that challenge the assumption of a just society. The idea of participation income also values formal paid jobs over non-formal, unpaid forms of work that may, in fact, offer greater personal reward and social good, which contribute to a more just society.

The blinkers used in the B.C. report effectively turned a study that was supposed to be about the feasibility of a basic income in B.C. into one that was about designing a better income transfer scheme without using basic income.

Insofar as the framework chosen for their study is concerned, the report is correct in its conclusion that an untargeted poverty reduction program, such as basic income, would be less efficient than a targeted program. That is why I fear that any campaign for basic income that is focused solely on poverty alleviation will be ruled out on efficiency grounds and will not make much headway intellectually or politically.

When I last spoke about basic income in this chamber, it was on a motion introduced by former senator Art Eggleton, in which he proposed basic income pilot projects led by the federal government working with the provinces. I argued at the time that the foundational case for basic income is personal autonomy and the expansion of collective freedoms.

I believe that freedom is not so much about the right to do as one chooses, but more about having the capability to do so. Freedom is an end in itself and therefore an important social value, but it is also a means for individuals to work toward other ends, such as a fulfilling career, acquiring goods and services or artistic pursuits.

A guaranteed basic income can be an important plank in advancing an individual’s freedom in both a constitutive as well as an instrumental sense. Providing the means for individuals to address their basic needs is a way of giving them the freedom to develop and expand their capabilities for even greater freedom.

At heart, basic income represents an evolution of the social safety net that values the rights of individuals to exercise their freedoms without stigma. This may sound a bit like a libertarian creed, but the idea is also rooted in egalitarianism and in the belief that there is a collective responsibility for empowering individuals to exercise their freedoms.

One obvious way in which to test basic income is to conduct pilot projects and to measure not just the impact on poverty alleviation, but also on other social indicators such as health care, educational attainment, crime and volunteering. A pilot project could provide answers to these very worldly questions as well as to broader philosophical objections that have led some to rule out basic income.

For example, the hypothesis that society would reject unconditional transfers because they violate the work obligations and social reciprocity necessary for a just society is just that — it’s a hypothesis. The B.C. panel ruled out the need for a pilot project in part because they took the hypothesis as a given. My own preference is to look to the empirics rather than relying on political theory. That is why I support more research on basic income and especially pilot projects along the lines of what has been proposed for Prince Edward Island. In fact, I would support a flowering of pilot projects across the country, including in my home province of British Columbia, that could be used to compare with each other.

Colleagues, there are still many unanswered questions about basic income and its efficacy as a new form of social safety net for Canadians, but I think we would do well to study the issue further and this bill allows us an opportunity to do so. Let’s send it to committee. Thank you.