I think it's time to take a really serious look at eliminating poverty in Canada, including homelessness, and including (formerly) well-off people hitting bottom via bankruptcy (It happens.)
In my mind, we are currently providing hodge-podge patchwork of social safety net programs that chew up a lot of money in bureaucratic red tape, and still allow a lot of vulnerable people to fall through the cracks/chasms between programs. Instead of 'the nanny state' controlling and deciding who qualifies for what, at great cost in staffing 'means testing' for a variety of government and charity programs, I'd like to see a full assessment and public discussion of the data relevant to an economic case for a basic income program.
RE: Means testing and other 'qualification' for various support programs ... it's important for everyone to understand ... everytime we put qualifiers on an income support program, we are putting in place an expensive bureaucracy whose job is to collect all of the relevant paperwork from applicants, and push it around from desk to desk until a yes/no decision can be made, and then administer funds and constantly re-assess qualifying status too. An example of redundant waste in paper-pushing in disability benefits: People with permanently disabling conditions are required every year to go through medical and other assessment and paperwork hoops to prove that they are still disabled, ridiculously wasting precious and expensive medical time and resources, bureaucratic processing, and heavily taxing the disabled people's already-challenged ability to cope. Also, disabled people can access additional supports - equipment (eg, wheelchairs, special diets, accessible housing, etc) via a patchwork of (partially publicly funded) charity programs, that may vary by community or province.
If (eg) you have multiple sclerosis or another progressive condition that affects both mobility and mental functioning, how on earth are you expected to negotiate the murky bureaucracies required to sustain your ongoing needs for income support? People least capable are the ones with the biggest bureaucratic demands on them. Really unfair.
I see it as much more efficient and humane to simply provide everyone with a basic income, without qualification, and allow us all to determine how to spend it to meet our own needs.
The economic arguments for basic income, then, include the huge reductions in public bureaucratic costs, and increases in consumer spending that bolsters the private sector and the economy as a whole.
Three models for a basic income program in Canada are proposed. Discussion of the relative merits of these three may elucidate the concept as a whole.
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/basic-income-analysis-canada_ca_5e2770acc5b62c612e13c4dcI'll let you read about the 3 models yourselves.
I'll just say that my preference is #3 where the basic income (eg, $22k) is allocated to everyone, including the wealthiest, and taxed back progressively after a reasonable income (eg, $60k).
So, in a year when you go bankrupt, lose everything, hit the skids, basic income immediately kicks in for anyone without application or bureaucratic hurdles.
Today's millionaire can be tomorrow's alcoholic street panhandler, so let's not forget them, and in the process, we make it simpler and more efficient for everyone.