The short answer to that is, no, we didn’t talk to artists in particular. I agree with everything you said. I appreciate the arts greatly. I think it’s an integral part of our society. I think it should be supported on a higher level than we do. But creating a general basic income for the whole economy and expecting it to hit every target — thinking that it’s going to reduce poverty, get people to better jobs and improve the arts sector — is asking everything from one policy tool. My belief is, given the goals you stated, with which I agree, we should be thinking about the program that makes them possible. Part of my point is that in doing that, we would go to that community and ask them how to create a self-supporting community that helps each other. I just don’t see it happening by giving everybody money and hoping that a certain set of people become artists. I think there’s a more direct way to do it.

I’m going to try to go further because it’s true that part of the work of the cultural sector is invisible work. It’s invisible because they do research and they’re creating in their own studio. During that period, they’re not paid. They’re not contributing to the economy in that sense. But further down the line, they will produce and perform.

Don’t you think that, for example, for that sector — you were speaking about targeted sectors — it could be relevant? Most of the time, they depend on grants and wages when they work, for example, as performing artists. But there’s a gap there that is obviously impossible to fill, and a basic income could help by being the base of a good wage for them to work.

What do you think?

First, let me say that you’re much more the expert in this than I am. This is not a particular part of the society that I know in detail. I know artists, but I don’t know the details of how to do this better. All I’m saying is that a general basic income doesn’t necessarily seem, to me, to be the response. I don’t see going from this problem, which I agree with, to the conclusion that, therefore, we need a general basic income. Maybe a targeted basic income is the way to think about this. Do we think about creating a community of artists that are given a particular support program that helps create a community that they take part in? That, I believe, makes sense to me, but I’m not sure that I understand why that’s an argument for a general basic income.

Thank you.

Professor Green, would you be open to giving us a written answer to the following questions posed by the four senators?

Yes, I’d be happy to do that.

Thank you.

Yes, that was part of what we looked at. Part of the issue is that it’s something you can’t escape. If you want to —

Professor Green, I will interrupt. We had agreed that we would have the answer in writing through the clerk. Do we still agree on that?

I misinterpreted. I beg your pardon.

I’d like to follow up on Senator Marshall’s question. One thing that struck me in the opening remarks was your idea that the basic income program places the burden on the vulnerable individual to fix their own problems that they face.

Could you expand on that? What needs to be done? Maybe tie that into where you are now in terms of your research and work. What are the next steps so that we can understand where you’d like to take it? Thank you.

Thank you, Professor Green. I want to come back to something you raised with Senator Woo in terms of long-term costs.

Part of the challenge has been that — certainly I’d be interested in your response to this, in writing as well — we haven’t seen a basic income and we haven’t seen the long-term costs, in part, because, as you pointed out, there is the political nature and the fact that programs have been cut. You’re probably familiar with the Finland example where they have looked at some of the cost savings and downstream benefits of the types of approaches they’ve done and, in fact, have found savings, particularly in terms of medical costs, the criminal legal system and a more just society. Is it tautological in some respects — because of how our election cycles work — that we haven’t had a government that is willing to take it on? That’s the first part of the question.

The second part is the bill doesn’t actually say, “Implement only a basic income.” It talks about national standards. It talks about many of the issues, and replacing social assistance wouldn’t address the single mom that you talked about. In fact, the bill tries to look at a number of those issues. I’d be interested in your response to how a streamlined process might look at all of those issues, including the jurisdictional issues that we’ve raised.

I’ve really appreciated your commentary today, Dr. Green. I have so many questions, so I won’t burden you. But maybe I can get together with you in Vancouver sometime, and we can have a longer conversation.

I would appreciate that.

Professor Green, as we conclude, do you have any comments before I ask you to follow another exercise, which would be that you would provide us with written responses, through the clerk, by the end of the day on December 23 — do we agree on that?

Yes, I can do that.

Do you have any comments in closing, for yourself, Professor Green?

I would just say that I appreciate the conversation. I appreciate how much everybody here is engaged in these questions that I think we all care about. I have great respect for basic income as an approach. I just think it’s not the most effective one. But I really appreciate the conversation and being included in it.

On behalf of the chair, it’s not December 23, but December 6, 2023.

Senators, we will move immediately to the next panel with the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[Translation]

Today, we will begin our study on the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, which was referred to this committee on November 21, 2023, by the Senate of Canada. We are very pleased to welcome you today, Mr. Giroux, as always. Thank you for joining us. Whenever we ask you to testify, you are always ready and available for the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.

[English]

Mr. Giroux is accompanied by Jill Giswold, Senior Analyst; and Kaitlyn Vanderwees, Analyst. Welcome, and thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Giroux, your testimony and remarks always help us — on behalf of all Canadians — to focus on our four main objectives that we share in common, which are the transparency, accountability, reliability and predictability of budgets.

That said, the floor is yours. Your remarks will be followed by questions from senators.