Article content continued

Cancelling existing programs and redirecting the money to a minimum income program would be problematic on two fronts, says the report: A universal payment might take needed funds from poorer Canadians, increasing poverty rates across the country, while a more targeted, income-tested benefit could lead to higher levels of poverty among seniors, it warns.

Either way, governments are left with politically problematic paths, said David Macdonald, a senior economist with the think tank and the author of the study.

“If you want to start cancelling programs — existing programs — to pay for a basic income, then you automatically create winners and losers,” Macdonald said.

Instead, the paper argues for a taxable, universal benefit sent to all Canadians on top of the 33 federal and provincial income support programs, such as the Canada Child Benefit and old age security. Such a benefit would lift some 713,000 Canadians out of poverty at a net cost of $29.2 billion, it says — a calculation that doesn’t include social assistance programs such as employment insurance.

Multiple studies have long argued the pros and cons of an idea some see as a poverty panacea. Outside Canada, the concept has been implemented in several countries; a number of provinces are studying the idea, while Ontario has plans to launch a pilot project.

Macdonald said governments don’t need to take years to study how a minimum income affects poverty rates.

“It doesn’t require a 10-year pilot project to figure out what the impact and cost will be on poverty,” he said.

“You get additional information on health care and education…but a guaranteed income at the levels I’m talking about in the paper, which are reasonably expensive, really are not for the middle class. This is definitely for people at or below the poverty line.”