Related questions
By 2026? No. I could hope so, but even if passed the Senate bill (https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-233/first-reading) would just require the Finance minister to develop a framework by a year from whenever S-233 was passed. Typically if some regulation or law is put in place, there is some advance notice, and some period for the affected people and groups to come into compliance. So the fastest I can see this going is:
Sometime in 2024: S-233 passes
Sometime in 2025: The national framework is developed. (Most likely this would in fact take several years and involve lots of consultations with various groups).
Sometime in 2026, after the next election: Laws are passed to give effect to the proposed framework. This sort of thing also often takes multiple years.
Sometime in 2027 or 2028: The laws come into force and people actually start receiving income supplements.
I hope I'm wrong, but even in the best case, changes of this type take years to implement. Will watch this space though, I didn't know about the senate bill and do hope we get a UBI.
@equinoxhq Your analysis of the timeline and procedural steps required for implementing a universal basic income (UBI) in Canada by 2026 is a realistic perspective. The detailed progression from the passage of Bill S-233, through the development of a national framework, to the eventual enactment and implementation of laws supporting a UBI, shows the complex and time-intensive nature of such transformative policies.
However, while acknowledging the procedural and legislative hurdles, it’s also important to consider historical precedents where the Canadian government has acted very fast in response to urgent needs. The rapid deployment of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) during the COVID-19 pandemic is a recent example of how quickly policies can be implemented when there’s a strong political will and public support. This doesn’t directly equate to the feasibility of a rapid UBI implementation but serves as a reminder that the pace of change can sometimes surprise us.
Moreover, the national conversation around UBI has been gaining momentum, influenced by factors such as the pandemic’s economic impact, increasing awareness of income inequality, and technological advancements that threaten job security. Such a backdrop may create a conducive environment for more accelerated political action than typically anticipated.
You do raise a very sustained point and I agree with you, but there is always a possibility, and in this case, possibly a big one.
@aucwa There's a possibility, but I think something as drastic as COVID would be required for the political will to be there to make quick changes, as there was during COVID. I was surprised how quickly and how well governments reacted (there are lots of things to criticize, but when I first heard COVID was coming and we weren't sure whether the death rate would be 1% or 10% because the death figures out of Wuhan were in that range, my expectation was that nothing would get done until tens to hundreds of millions of people had died. A month later, with very few deaths in the developed world, we were all in lockdown) but I do think that is a very rare exception to how things generally go. And I think if something as drastic as COVID happens, "deal with the drastic change that just happened" is going to be the top priority, the rest of the legislative agenda will get put on the back burner.
There's some possibility of a drastic change to which the correct response is universal basic income, but if for example we have an AI breakthrough and suddenly the constraint to having fully automated labour is "how fast can you build factories for building robots and AI chips?", I think the legislative focus will be regulating AI and making sure some tax revenue comes in from whatever economic explosion is about to happen.
But, in that scenario, government could easily think "we'll have plenty of money very soon, let's go into deficit to send some money to the newly unemployed so that fewer people riot in response to the mass unemployment". It might in effect be the start of a de facto UBI, but be implemented without a well worked out plan, similar to how CERB was done.
If some emergency measure due to a drastic change was implemented, under what circumstances would you consider it to be the case "Canada has a UBI now"? I was thinking about that coming about by the passage of S-233 and other laws as I outlined above, "the right response to this emergency is a UBI" is a different path.
@equinoxhq Your perspective shows some valid concerns and scenarios where the need for rapid policy responses, including potentially a universal basic income (UBI), could become apparent. Your reflection on the government’s response to COVID-19 is an exceptional capacity for swift action under dire circumstances, about the point that significant political can emerge in the face of urgent challenges. Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic was a rare exception that disrupted the usual pace of legislative and bureaucratic processes, showing the rapid change is possible with enough impetus.
However, as you rightly point out, such crises also prioritize immediate response measures over long-term policy planning. The example of a potential AI breakthrough leading to widespread automation is a fascinating scenario. In this case, the immediate legislative focus might indeed center on regulating AI and securing tax revenues from the ensuing economic expansion, rather than implementing a UBI. Yet, the resultant mass unemployment could necessitate emergency financial support measures that, while not initially designed as a UBI, might pave the way for one.
This brings us to the crux of your question: under what circumstances could emergency measures be considered a de facto UBI? In my view, several criteria could signal that emergency financial support measures have transitioned into a UBI:
1. Universality and Unconditionality: If the support becomes available to all citizens (or all adult citizens) without a means test or a requirement to work, it would embody the core principles of a UBI.
2. Permanence: A transition from temporary emergency measures to permanent policy would be a clear sign. This would likely require formal legislative action.
3. Adequacy: The level of support should be sufficient to cover basic living expenses, ensuring individuals can meet their needs without supplemental income, although many might choose to work for additional earnings.
Your anticipation of a scenario where emergency measures lead to a form of UBI, albeit not through the traditional legislative path, is intriguing. It suggests a possible side door to UBI, initiated by necessity and solidified through recognition of its benefits. This approach could indeed circumvent some of the lengthy processes associated with typical policy implementation, especially if the emergency measures prove effective in stabilizing the economy and supporting citizens.