Hugh Segal and basic income

Editorial

By Lindsay Advocate

The late Hugh Segal was a lifelong proponent of a basic income – a policy that would ensure no one would ever drop below the poverty line, no matter life’s circumstances. File photo.

The death of Hugh Segal a few weeks ago reminded the country there really did exist another breed of politician. The kind of politician who might carry a party label without carrying personal animosity in his heart toward those in other parties.

Segal was a true Progressive Conservative. He took his cues “not from the anger found in the dark divisiveness of the American or British right wings, but in the reform-minded and compassionate Toryism of another of his heroes, Benjamin Disraeli,” as columnist Art Milnes noted.

His death had local reverberations, too, because he was the architect of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot which he helped design at the request of the previous Ontario government. The retired senator was a lifelong proponent of a basic income – a policy that would ensure no one would ever drop below the poverty line, no matter life’s circumstances.

Lindsay was one of three Ontario places that had started the three-year pilot, along with Hamilton and Thunder Bay. The Ontario pilot’s intent was to determine what would happen if a financial springboard existed for people in times of need.

When Premier Doug Ford ran for office in 2018, his campaign team made it clear that the innovative three-year pilot would be left alone so researchers could assess results. And yet in one of his first acts upon taking office, it was spiked.

One of the reasons for cancelling the pilot was ostensibly the cost of $50 million a year for the three years, Ford said. (To put this in perspective, Ford made $50 million available to faith-based and cultural organizations impacted by COVID.)

Segal was known as the happy warrior because he was an eternal optimist. But he was deeply embarrassed to be a Progressive Conservative after Ford’s decision to pull the rug out from thousands of people who were enrolled in the program.

While he did not see the eradication of poverty in his lifetime through a basic income, others continue to carry that torch and remember his dedication.

1 Comment

  1. Wallace says:

    Free money is not the answer. An income supplement is the answer. At least then, the people that are willing to work get a helping hand. And there are people that are truly disabled who we (tax payers) should be paying more disability money to …. there are also people who refuse to work and always have their hand out. Giving them free money is not the solution. Giving the habitually unemployed and eternally needy people free money is creating nothing but expectation and dependency. All they want is more, and when they don’t get it, they are resentful and bitter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*