Your immediate and enforceable right to basic income as ensured under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 3 January 1976, in accordance with article 27 demonstrates that the Canadian governements like France and other signatory nations have put themselves under a legal duty of care concerning the Article 25 UDHR guaranteed rights of every citizen as the governements are under a duty of care to ensure these rights. The contractual remedy for breach of contract is damages and specific enforcement for breach. A national constitution is a people's contract with themselves as people. The people are not third parties to a contract as discussed on Donoghue vs. Stevenson but direct signatories to the Constitution. A Law suit for breach of contract is the ideal and simplified means of dealing a remedy; not an action in tort although Tort cases exist in this regard for breach of duty. This is a good thing when a duty to one citizen or legal entity under contract has failed, leading to tortious loss and damage being suffered by third parties. For instance, a drug addicted politician should not be allowed to maintain his office and the police are under a contractual obligation to ensure he does not commit misfeasance in public office which is a criminal offence. If they do not apprehend him, it is a breach of their job contract. However, the politician's misfeasance has led to a breach of a duty of care under Tort law, affecting citizens across the country. The politician is also vicariously liable under contract to fulfill his own contractual duty as an employee of the people's government. A constitution is a contract with its citizens. Under the Magna Carta as the great contract. Understand legislation as part of the Contract that is the Constitution. Understand UN treaties as immediate expressions of the Constitution and Contract. Canada is a party to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. This creates a legislative and contractual obligation to fulfill the guaranteed rights set out in the Declaration and the obligation to Ensure the guaranteed rights. It is an onerous obligation but not impossible and the failure to ensure is a positive breach of Domestic and International Laws involving the offense of genocide since deliberately failing to ensure the guaranteed rights constitutes a planned orchestration of the destruction of peoples; in whole or in part with conditions of life amounting to the intention to destroy. All of the obligations under the UDHR satisfy existing Domestic Law by definition as an international treaty where the country is a party. The current means and wealth of any citizen is irrelevant when some save and some don't. Some work and some cannot and the life circumstances of any citizen is subject to change at any time for various reasons and one key reason is industrial robotic automation. In any event, being a party to the UDHR Declaration is a positive obligation on the government as signatory. The contractual obligation between a government and its citizens with respect to various UN obligations is found in the Canadian Constitution that makes such UN treaties Domestic Canadian Law once the treaty is signed. As to basic income, the UDHR article 25 guarantees a certain standard of life and this guaranteed standard is to be ensured with evident provision in the life of every citizen. Basic income is the policy to Ensure the guarantee. A few excerpts from Canadian National Railway Co. v. Norsk Pacific Steamship Co. (C.A.), [1990] 3 FC 114, 1990 CanLII 7930 (FCA) demonstrating the right to compensation for pure economic loss when there is a breach of contractual duty and a duty of care in failing to maintain the ensured and guaranteed Article 25 UDHR rights of a citizen about whom the government is aware under its social services electronic infrastructure with the use of Social Insurance Electronic architecture: In my opinion such cases as Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks Co. (1875), L.R. 10 Q.B. 453, and Weller & Co. v. Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute, [1965] 3 All E.R. 560, should be seen as specific examples of a denial of recovery on the basis of absence of proximity, or remoteness of damage, or both, and not as establishing a principle that damages can never be recovered for economic loss if the loss arises from thebreach of a contractual relationship between one victim who suffers economic loss and another victim who suffers physical injury. The answer to such problems lies not in a uniform denial of recovery but in an application of the customary and sometimes difficult questions relating to proximity, foreseeability, causation and remoteness. Suppose an airline has a policy of discharging pilots who suffer from a medical disability and requires its pilots to undergo a medical examination each year by a doctor, selected by the airline, who knows the purpose of the examination. Suppose the doctor carelessly and incorrectly diagnoses a disability and the pilot is discharged. Would the pilot, as a matter of legal policy, be denied a cause of action against the doctor? I do not think so. Yet the loss suffered by the pilot would be economic loss arising from the doctor's negligent interference with the pilot's contractual relations with the airline. I leave unanswered the question of what difference it would make, if any, if the doctor was a salaried employee of the airline. The next question is whether, if there were a duty of care owed by the Minister of Finance or the Superintendent of Insurance to the appellants and a breach of that duty, there could in principle be recovery for purely economic loss. Counsel for the Crown contended that the kinds of cases in which there could be recovery for economic loss that is not consequential upon personal injury or property damage were limited to those represented by Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465, and Rivtow Marine, supra: negligent misrepresentation, and negligent failure to warn of a dangerous defect in a product. There is in my opinion nothing in subsequent judicial commentary on this question which suggests that recovery for purely economic loss is to be limited in principle to these categories of cases. In Agnew-Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd. v. Cummer-Yonge Investments Ltd. (1975), 1975 CanLII 26 (SCC), 55 D.L.R. (3d) 676 at pp. 692-3, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 221 at p. 252, [1975] I.L.R. 1171, there was the following general reference to the significance of Rivtow Marine: "It is now settled by the judgment of this Court in Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works ... that recovery for economic loss caused by negligence is allowable without any recovery for property damage." 3. A concurrent or alternative liability in tort will not be admitted if its effect would be to permit the plaintiff to circumvent or escape a contractual exclusion or limitation of liability for the act or omission that would constitute the tort. Subject to this qualification, where concurrent liability in tort and contract exists the plaintiff has the right to assert the cause of action that appears to be most advantageous to him in respect ofany particular legal consequence. The validity of the elements he considered important in finding liability for pure economic loss (at p. 29): 1. Knowledge of the claimant as a specific individual or identity who is likely to suffer the damage as opposed to knowledge of a general or unascertained class ofpeople. 2. Not only must it be established that loss was probably foreseeable but the precise nature of the loss should have been foreseeable. 3. There must be a sufficient degree of proximity between the act committed by the tortfeasor and the injury complained of, that an ordinary right thinking person would feel that the tortfeasor is morally bound to compensate the victim (Caltex Oil Australian Property Ltd. v. the Dredge Willemstad). This has also been expressed in terms of sufficient proximity of the property to lead to a duty of care to the claimant. In my judgment, taken collectively, if not, perhaps, individually,[2] these elements demonstrate that sufficient proximity giving rise to a duty of care owed by the appellants (defendants) to the respondent (plaintiff) existed; the case is a compelling one for recovery of the loss claimed. In the exceptional circumstances of this case, I can find no reason in policy for negativing this duty or for denying recovery of the loss. In so saying I wish once more to emphasize that the issue before us is solely concerned with liability for pure economic loss suffered by the respondent (plaintiff) and not at all with claims of the same nature advanced by other users ofthe bridge. . L'Écuyer c. Quebec (Attorney General), 2014 QCCS 5889 (CanLII) . Kamloops v. Nielsen, [1984] 2 SCR 2, 1984 CanLII 21 (SCC) . See the The Queen in Right of Canada v. The Queen in Right of Prince Edward Island, 1977 CanLII 1726 (FCA) . See also the Dorset Yacht case. . B.M. (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia, 2009 BCCA 413 (CanLII . Johnson et al. v. Adamson et al., 1981 CanLII 1667 (ON CA) . Principal Group Ltd. (Trustee of) v. Alberta, 1991 CanLII 6230 (AB QB) . Cumby v Snow and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1986 CanLII 2421 (NL CA) . Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Prisco, 1990 CanLII 5955 (AB QB) . It is within the U.N. policy that basic income is the means and method of satisfying a government's contractual obligation with the citizen under Article 25. See also Article 11 of the 1976 Covenant also confirming the obligation to "ensure" . A breach of the obligation is a criminal matter as a genocide offense. You could seek a class action remedy for breach of legislation and UN Charters that create the government's obligation. In determining a human right as to family and family members or individuals, we begin by observing the UN Charters that are relevant. We see Canada's obligations as signed yearly but certainly with out a doubt, there are commitments as a signatory member nation in 1948 and further commitments in 1976 as a regular and committed UDHR signatory. Article 25 of the UDHR guarantees sufficient individual finance for housing and all other necessities for a regular life as noted under Article 25. Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights confirms the rights of the individual. Persons intent on raising families require sufficient Monetary supplements,finance and support. Mothers or individuals need a basic income under the UDHR to support the family, themselves and the child. Understand Article 25. The basic income is considered income for child support purposes. The United Nations Human Rights Conventions in the Canadian legal Jurisdiction that have an impact on communities and individuals: Click here to read more about Bill C-78 and how it relates to UDHR Article 25 and basic income. Article 12 of the noted convention is Canadian Law whether or not it appears in statute. This is also true for Article 25 of the UDHR. The child as a citizen will also benefit from the UDHR Article 25 guarantee once he turns 12 years of age and the funds will be applied to his personal bank account. e. The child’s views and preferences Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 12 of this Convention provides that governments should recognize that children who are capable of forming their own views, depending on their age or maturity, have the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives. Children are directly affected by the parenting decisions that parents and judges make about them. This proposed factor would require consideration of children’s views on issues that are important to them. It would also direct that courts and parents give weight to the child’s views in accordance with the child’s age and maturity.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 3 January 1976, in accordance with article 27 demonstrates that the Canadian governements like France and other signatory nations have put themselves under a legal duty of care concerning the Article 25 UDHR guaranteed rights of every citizen as the governements are under a duty of care to ensure these rights. 

  The contractual remedy for breach of contract is damages and specific enforcement for breach. A national constitution is a people's contract with themselves as people.  The people are not third parties to a contract as discussed on Donoghue vs. Stevenson  but direct signatories to the Constitution. A Law suit for breach of contract is the ideal and simplified means of dealing a remedy; not an action in tort although Tort cases exist in this regard for breach of duty. This is a good thing when a duty to one citizen or legal entity  under contract has failed, leading to tortious loss and damage being suffered by third parties. For instance, a drug addicted politician should not be allowed to maintain his office and the police are under a contractual obligation to ensure he does not commit misfeasance in public office which is a criminal offence. If they do not apprehend him, it is a breach of their job contract. However, the politician's misfeasance has led to a breach of a  duty of care under Tort law, affecting citizens across the country. The politician is also vicariously liable under contract to fulfill his own contractual duty as an employee of the people's government.     A constitution is a contract with its citizens. Under the Magna Carta as the great contract. Understand legislation as part of the Contract that is the Constitution. Understand UN treaties as immediate expressions of the Constitution and Contract.    Canada is a party to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. This creates a legislative and contractual obligation to fulfill the guaranteed rights set out in the  Declaration and the obligation to Ensure the guaranteed rights. It is an onerous obligation but not impossible and the failure to ensure is a positive breach of Domestic and International Laws involving the offense of genocide since deliberately failing to ensure the guaranteed rights constitutes a planned  orchestration of the destruction of peoples; in whole or in part with conditions of life amounting to  the intention to destroy.  All of the obligations under the UDHR satisfy existing Domestic Law by definition as an international treaty where the country is a  party. The current means and wealth of any citizen is irrelevant when some save and some don't. Some work and some cannot and the life circumstances of any citizen is subject to change at any time for various reasons and one key reason is industrial robotic automation. In any event, being a party to the UDHR Declaration is a positive obligation on the government as signatory.   The contractual obligation between a government and its citizens with respect to various UN obligations is found in the Canadian Constitution that makes such UN treaties Domestic Canadian Law once the treaty is signed.  As to basic income, the UDHR article 25 guarantees a certain standard of life and this guaranteed standard is to be ensured with evident provision in the life of every citizen.  Basic income is the policy to Ensure the guarantee.

A few  excerpts from 

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Norsk Pacific Steamship Co. (C.A.), [1990] 3 FC 114, 1990 CanLII 7930 (FCA) demonstrating the right to compensation for pure economic loss when there is a breach of contractual duty and a duty of care in failing to maintain the ensured and guaranteed Article 25 UDHR rights of a citizen about  whom the government is aware under its social services electronic infrastructure with the use of Social Insurance Electronic architecture:

In my opinion such cases as Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks Co. (1875), L.R. 10 Q.B. 453, and Weller & Co. v. Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute, [1965] 3 All E.R. 560, should be seen as specific examples of a denial of recovery on the basis of absence of proximity, or remoteness of damage, or both, and not as establishing a principle that damages can never be recovered for economic loss if the loss arises from thebreach of a contractual relationship between one victim who suffers economic loss and another victim who suffers physical injury. The answer to such problems lies not in a uniform denial of recovery but in an application of the customary and sometimes difficult questions relating to proximity, foreseeability, causation and remoteness.

Suppose an airline has a policy of discharging pilots who suffer from a medical disability and requires its pilots to undergo a medical examination each year by a doctor, selected by the airline, who knows the purpose of the examination. Suppose the doctor carelessly and incorrectly diagnoses a disability and the pilot is discharged. Would the pilot, as a matter of legal policy, be denied a cause of action against the doctor? I do not think so. Yet the loss suffered by the pilot would be economic loss arising from the doctor's negligent interference with the pilot's contractual relations with the airline. I leave unanswered the question of what difference it would make, if any, if the doctor was a salaried employee of the airline.

The next question is whether, if there were a duty of care owed by the Minister of Finance or the Superintendent of Insurance to the appellants and a breach of that duty, there could in principle be recovery for purely economic loss. Counsel for the Crown contended that the kinds of cases in which there could be recovery for economic loss that is not consequential upon personal injury or property damage were limited to those represented by Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465, and Rivtow Marine, supra: negligent misrepresentation, and negligent failure to warn of a dangerous defect in a product. There is in my opinion nothing in subsequent judicial commentary on this question which suggests that recovery for purely economic loss is to be limited in principle to these categories of cases. In Agnew-Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd. v. Cummer-Yonge Investments Ltd. (1975), 1975 CanLII 26 (SCC), 55 D.L.R. (3d) 676 at pp. 692-3, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 221 at p. 252, [1975] I.L.R. 1171, there was the following general reference to the significance of Rivtow Marine:

"It is now settled by the judgment of this Court in Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works ... that recovery for economic loss caused by negligence is allowable without any recovery for property damage."

3. A concurrent or alternative liability in tort will not be admitted if its effect would be to permit the plaintiff to circumvent or escape a contractual exclusion or limitation of liability for the act or omission that would constitute the tort. Subject to this qualification, where concurrent liability in tort and contract exists the plaintiff has the right to assert the cause of action that appears to be most advantageous to him in respect ofany particular legal consequence.

The validity of the elements he considered important in finding liability for pure economic loss (at p. 29):

1. Knowledge of the claimant as a specific individual or identity who is likely to suffer the damage as opposed to knowledge of a general or unascertained class ofpeople.

2. Not only must it be established that loss was probably foreseeable but the precise nature of the loss should have been foreseeable.

3. There must be a sufficient degree of proximity between the act committed by the tortfeasor and the injury complained of, that an ordinary right thinking person would feel that the tortfeasor is morally bound to compensate the victim (Caltex Oil Australian Property Ltd. v. the Dredge Willemstad). This has also been expressed in terms of sufficient proximity of the property to lead to a duty of care to the claimant.

In my judgment, taken collectively, if not, perhaps, individually,[2] these elements demonstrate that sufficient proximity giving rise to a duty of care owed by the appellants (defendants) to the respondent (plaintiff) existed; the case is a compelling one for recovery of the loss claimed. In the exceptional circumstances of this case, I can find no reason in policy for negativing this duty or for denying recovery of the loss. In so saying I wish once more to emphasize that the issue before us is solely concerned with liability for pure economic loss suffered by the respondent (plaintiff) and not at all with claims of the same nature advanced by other users ofthe bridge.

.

L'Écuyer c. Quebec (Attorney General), 2014 QCCS 5889 (CanLII)

.

Kamloops v. Nielsen, [1984] 2 SCR 2, 1984 CanLII 21 (SCC)

.

See the The Queen in Right of Canada v. The Queen in Right of Prince Edward Island, 1977 CanLII 1726 (FCA)

.

   See also the Dorset Yacht case.

.

 B.M. (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia, 2009 BCCA 413 (CanLII

.

 Johnson et al. v. Adamson et al., 1981 CanLII 1667 (ON CA)

.

  Principal Group Ltd. (Trustee of) v. Alberta, 1991 CanLII 6230 (AB QB)

.

 Cumby v Snow and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1986 CanLII 2421 (NL CA)

.

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Prisco, 1990 CanLII 5955 (AB QB)

.

 It is within the U.N. policy that basic income is the means and method of satisfying a government's contractual obligation with the citizen under Article 25. See also Article 11 of the 1976 Covenant also confirming the obligation to "ensure" .  A breach of the obligation is a criminal matter as a genocide offense. You could seek a class action remedy for breach of legislation and UN Charters that create the government's obligation.    In determining a human right as to family and family members or individuals, we begin by observing the UN Charters that are relevant. We see Canada's obligations as signed yearly but certainly with out a doubt, there are commitments as a signatory member nation in 1948 and further commitments in 1976 as a regular and committed  UDHR signatory.  Article 25 of the UDHR guarantees sufficient individual finance for housing and all other necessities for a regular  life as noted under Article 25.  Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights  confirms the rights of the individual.  Persons intent on raising families require sufficient Monetary supplements,finance and support.   Mothers  or individuals need a basic income under the UDHR to support the family,  themselves and the child. Understand Article 25. The basic income is considered income for child support purposes.   The United Nations Human Rights Conventions in the  Canadian legal Jurisdiction  that have an impact on  communities and individuals: Click here to read more about Bill C-78 and how it relates to UDHR Article 25 and basic income. Article 12 of the noted convention is Canadian Law whether or not it appears in statute.  This is also true for Article 25 of the UDHR. The child as a citizen will also benefit from the UDHR Article 25 guarantee  once he turns 12 years of age and the funds will be applied to his personal bank account.    e. The child’s views and preferences Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 12 of this Convention provides that governments should recognize that children who are capable of forming their own views, depending on their age or maturity, have the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives. Children are directly affected by the parenting decisions that parents and judges make about them. This proposed factor would require consideration of children’s views on issues that are important to them. It would also direct that courts and parents give weight to the child’s views in accordance with the child’s age and maturity.