Implementing Concrete Ways to Eliminate Poverty should be a Priority

It’s difficult not to be struck by how hard it can be to make ends meet these days, especially for those already teetering on the brink. Inflation has caused a significant spike in food bank usage, driven renters from their homes, and hurt Canadians’ ability to afford necessities like prescription drugs. While those inflationary pressures certainly aren’t a uniquely Canadian issue by any stretch of the imagination (many of our closest trading partners, like the United Kingdom and United States, have had higher peak inflation than we have), we must address them in our own way.

It was hard listening to a recent story from CTV News about a 58-year-old man named Mike from Sudbury, who intentionally omitted his last name and didn’t appear on camera because of the stigma related to being homeless. Mike was recently evicted from his home after it was sold by the owner, and now only receives $900 from the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) from the province, having lost the additional shelter benefit of $582 because of his eviction. He’s now registered on the city’s emergency housing list, but with apartments costing more than $1,000 a month for a bachelor, he seems stuck. He also has several medical issues, including a heart condition and the early stages of Parkinson’s disease. Mike’s story is tragic, but not unique.

It's also a story that demonstrates that there is a lot more that can and should be done to eliminate poverty. The precariousness and cost of housing, and the limited access to disability benefits, seem to be working in concert to compound a difficult situation and make it worse. So what options are on the table for poverty alleviation on a national level?

One idea that has gained traction over the years is some form of Guaranteed Basic Income. The same weekend Mike’s story appeared on CTV, another story, this one from Halifax’s The Chronicle Herald, explained a forum hosted by Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard, who discussed her belief that a GBI could be used to help eliminate poverty. A GBI program has been floated by people from very different backgrounds, such as former Progressive Conservative Senator Hugh Segal to NDP MP Leah Gazan. GBI can be an essential tool to lift millions out of poverty, however, many advocates believe that unjust biases against people living in poverty and a lack of political will are keeping the idea on the backburner.

Ontario had studied a GBI before it was cancelled by Doug Ford’s Conservative government, and it found work placements and community involvement increased, school retention improved, and perhaps most importantly, health outcomes, particularly mental health, were better. There exist two bills, S-233 on the Senate side and C-223 in the House of Commons, that would create the framework for a Guaranteed Basic Livable Income.

Additionally, people like Mike, who collect ODSP benefits, had been contacting my office for years in anticipation of the government’s touted Canada Disability Benefit. While the federal government was insistent that program would lift hundreds of thousands of disabled Canadians out of poverty, when it came time to actually fund the program, it would provide a mere $2,400 annually to recipients ($200 per month). They revised their statement, saying that the CDB would “increase the financial well-being of over 600,000 low-income persons with disabilities,” with the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities stating it would now only pull 25,000 Canadians over the poverty line. The silver lining is that the CDB is established, and therefore the funding model is structured in such a way to eventually provide people with disabilities with enough money to actually pull them out of poverty. But much like a GBI, the political will must exist to do so.

We must welcome discussions about how we can eliminate poverty, and programs like a GBI or the CDB can help get us there. There will always be questions about how we pay for such programs. It’s important to have those discussions because they help frame the question and lead us to answers. Do we increase taxes on the most profitable corporations? Do we eliminate fossil fuel subsidies for fossil fuel companies who are raking in record profits? There will always be a question of cost, but inaction also has a cost, one borne by the people least able to pay.