This Monday, April 12th 2019, David Khan, leader of the Alberta Liberals, announced a series of fundamental changes to the way social policies are practiced in this Canadian province, if elected next Tuesday (Alberta Votes 2019). These changes include large investments in oil-related infrastructure, public and health services, eliminating or considerably reducing income tax, and setting up a basic income pilot test.
The party’s platform ranges a large number of issues, from finance, employment, poverty, energy, democratic reform, down to indigenous relations and drug possession. However, the Alberta Liberals are clear in their overall message: if elected, they are here to put the economy growing. That pervading principle of contemporary economics has been contested extensively, but (economic) growth still attracts strongly, and David Khan is focused on achieving it.
Khan boldly states: “I encourage all Albertans to read our policies because we have the best pro-growth fiscal strategies of any party in this election.” In this case, it means to move from a tax policy based on income tax, to another resting on an 8% Value Added Tax. Even though that number is 60% below the standard VAT rate of many European countries (generally above 20%), Khan is certain “it’s the least harmful way of collecting tax”. That would cumulate with a generalized income tax break, effectively exempting 70% of the Albertian population from paying income tax.
Revenues, then, for governmental investments such as mental health services, social health care, affordable housing and, the basic income pilot test, would mainly come from energy-related commerce, particularly oil, which if an expansion does happen, might lead to more professionals with experience in the oil industry, looking to Find Work in Canada or possibly find work in other similar projects. There might however be some possible backlash. That is professed at the same time as strictly defending the environment, where “we will not tolerate industry damaging our future and our children’s future” can be read on the party’s platform first text page. However, it seems to go unnoticed that the oil industry’s record on environmental protection has not been admirable, to say the least. The idea is to restart the Trans Mountain and the East pipeline projects, both stalled for a long time due to constitutional and environmental reasons. For some reason these projects have been kept waiting, or stored in place for later elimination, because, at put by Jon Biger Skjærseth and Tora Skodvin in their book on climate change and the oil industry, “these companies share the same core aim of selling as much oil and gas as possible at the highest possible price and the lowest possible cost within the same global market”. And, of course, eventually all that oil and gas gets burned, adding up to the already alarming CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
As for the basic income test pilot, the Alberta Liberals are invested in rolling it out, since they “support the creation of a Basic Income.” The arguments for such a belief come from reduced bureaucracy, financial security for all and the elimination of jobs through automation.
Picture credit to: Opportunity for All (Government of Canada)
Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development for the Canadian Federal Government, has launched a call for applications to assemble a so-called National Advisory Council on Poverty. This council will be comprised of experts in poverty-related issues, and “people who have lived experienced or are currently living in poverty (…) indigenous peoples, women, persons with disabilities, visible minorities and other vulnerable groups”. The purpose is, not only having actual experience of poverty in the group, but also for it to be “representative of Canada’s linguistic, gender and regional diversity.”
This advisory group will be responsible for giving advice about programs and funding strategies which can contribute to poverty reduction, as well as produce a yearly report with detailed information on how poverty reduction goals are being met, according to agreed metrics. On top of that, the group shall also engage the public, including the academic community, several experts, indigenous people and others which experience or have experienced poverty. Applications to work with the group can be done online, until the 29th of January 2019.
The creation of this Council derives from the overarching Program “Opportunity for All”, a Canadian Federal Government initiative which it considers Canada’s first poverty reduction strategy. According to the Program’s website, the purpose of “Opportunity for All is to eradicate poverty because we are all better off when no one is left behind. Opportunity for All supports a human rights-based approach to poverty reduction, reflecting principles that include universality, non-discrimination and equality, participation of those living in poverty, accountability and working together.” It may be worth mentioning that “universality” is only mentioned on this one occasion throughout the explanation of the whole program, but nonetheless it is clearly stated here. Furthermore, the Program states that:
“Opportunity for All is about working together to end poverty so that all Canadians can live with dignity, have real and fair access to opportunities to succeed, and be resilient enough to get through difficult times. Living with dignity means that Canadians would be living without hunger and would have enough income to meet their basic needs (…)”
Jean-Yves Duclos
Although basic income is not mentioned, the reference to a universal “all Canadians” linked with “enough income to meet their needs” might point in the direction of some unconditional cash transfer program as one of the tools for poverty reduction in Canada. That would be aligned with Jean-Yves Duclos recent statements on the subject. Furthermore, the Program is based an a civic approach to problem-solving, since consultation was done to the wider population:
“Opportunity for All is guided by the thousands of voices we have heard and, in particular, the voices of those with lived experience of poverty. Canadians told us that poverty is complex, that different groups experience different risks of poverty and different challenges in getting out of poverty, and that reducing it requires a long-term commitment as well as calls for a coordinated approach with diverse groups—government and non-government alike. Canadians told us that the Strategy must contribute to a national effort to reduce poverty. It must also recognize that when some members of our communities cannot reach their full potential, we are all affected. More specifically, Canadians have said that the Poverty Reduction Strategy should be about:
Dignity – Lifting Canadians out of poverty by ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met;
Opportunity and Inclusion – Helping Canadians join the middle class by promoting full participation in society and equality of opportunity;
Resilience and Security – Supporting the middle class by protecting Canadians from falling into poverty and by supporting income security and resilience.”
Again, focusing on the needs of everyone, ensuring the full participation of all people in society and creating a solid ground so that no one falls into poverty, suggests a basic income type of policy, without explicitly mentioning it. This could mean that the National Advisory Council on Poverty will study or consider basic income somehow within its mandate, although no direct information exists to confirm it, at this moment.
Floyd Marinescu, a Canadian entrepreneur who describes himself as “an angel investor, author, humanitarian, and homosapien”, is featured in this interview, on CBC Radio, which has been condensed into a Whiteboard animation. Floyd has been a long-time defender of basic income, from a business perspective. According to him, the rise in aggregate demand which basic income will generate, is just what business needs to flourish. Paying for a basic income would also be fairly straightforward, Floyd reasons, especially when you realize that it’s net cost that matters, not gross cost. Financing would then come from closing redundant welfare programs, resolving tax loop holes, moderate rises in income tax and a series of other tax revenues (e.g.: carbon emissions, financial transactions, natural resources extraction, intellectual property).
Marinescu talks about “compassionate capitalism”, which builds on innovation and entrepreneurship, but also redistributes corporate gains to the whole of the population, so that “the working poor don’t need to be destitute”. For him, basic income also means freedom, personally and professionally, given the high number of people clearly mismatched with their current jobs, since it would allow them to make the necessary changes in their lives. Basic income would also allow more risk-taking, which is essential for entrepreneurship. Overall, according to Marinescu, basic income would be a great economic stimulus for Canada, putting more money into circulation, benefitting most people and also the government, which would collect more taxes to spend on public goods and services.
After the cancellation of the Ontario basic income experiment, country-wide discussions about the issue continues in Canada as the Federal Government approaches the policy, although a direct intervention in Ontario is unlikely. Prime Minister Trudeau and his Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos have already stated that the Federal Government does not intrude into regional policy programs. However, Duclos has said, this month, that existing benefits will eventually cover more people than those already eligible for state (not universal) guaranteed minimum income. In his words: “At some point, there will be a universal guaranteed minimum income in Canada for all Canadians”.
So, despite all the opposition, rallies and advices against the Ontario axed basic income experiment, apparently it is indeed buried. However, it seems, interest in the concept is higher than ever, which is not surprising since the causing needs are still there (poverty, bureaucratic conditional welfare, precariousness, unemployment). Pundits on television agree over the concept, while looking at it as a tool to reduce the government influence radius (a more conservative approach to basic income), but certain that other basic income pilots will effectively be tried out in Canada (if not by other reasons, for beefing up the liberal agenda). Trudeau, on his end, has expressed sympathy for basic income, as a way to support workers, giving people some stability. That and a myriad of other considered policies, according to him: “I don’t think I’d be speaking out of turn to say that [basic income] it’s still something that is in the universe of all sorts of tools that we’re looking at on how to best help Canadians”.
Even though the Federal parliamentary budget office has calculated that supplying a guaranteed financial floor to all Canadians (up to an average of CAN$ 9421/year) would implicate an expenditure rise on social benefits of around 30%, basic income captures interest even on the Conservative side of the political spectrum. Karen Vecchio, MP for the Conservatives, has favoured the concept, although rising cost implications and questioning eventual long-term benefits for Canadians. That’s exactly why Hugh Segal, one of the Ontario basic income experiment designers (and former Conservative senator), affirms that such pilots are necessary: “to figure out whether the idea works”. Segal, as well as Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party, argue that the Federal Government should pick up the cancelled Ontario basic income experiment, or at least help in financing further regional pilots.
How can a guaranteed livable income help us to live equitably, sustainably, and peacefully? This was the central question explored in an event hosted by Sarah Mah and Thao Hoang of the feminist grass-roots organization Asian Women for Equality on the International Day to Eradicate Poverty on October 17, in Montreal, Canada.
Mah served as the moderator for the evening. She initiated the panel discussion by calling attention to the relationship between environmental sustainability, women’s rights, and a guaranteed livable income.
“We host these panels as feminist platforms for discussions about guaranteed livable income to bring academia, grassroots, and frontline groups together…to bring different fields together and build alliances and shared theory with each other,” Mah said.
In light of the recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the severity of climate change, she described how rapidly changing climate conditions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in society, especially women.
“Women are already vulnerable to male violence and exploitation, and this is made worse in climate-change induced natural disasters,” she said.
The first panelist was Rob Rainer of Basic Income Network Canada. Rainer argued for a paradigm shift in which basic income plays a central and inherent part. Shedding light on the already existing forms of basic income-like programs in Canada such as the child tax benefit and old age security, he drew attention to the emotional and financial security these that these programs already provide for large segments of the population. He argued that a basic income has the potential to promote and encourage citizen engagement in environmental protection.
“By ensuring or improving one’s economic security, basic income decouples such security from attachment to the paid labour market and supports the pursuit of non-market work that actually may be far more important for community well-being, sustainability and survival,” Rainer remarked.
For example, people might engage more in local food production, urban farming, and citizen wildlife monitoring and what about the simple, yet incredibly impactful, act of picking up the tons of plastic on our beaches and in our oceans. Yet, as Rainer pointed out, “it’s difficult to participate in this when you are struggling for survival.” A basic income could allow us to engage more sustainability with our surrounding environment, and pour more of our energy and presence into conserving, caring for, and protecting our planet.
Panelist Cathy Orlando from the Citizen’s Climate Lobby, a non-partisan, non-profit organization, spoke further on the connection between environmental sustainability and a guaranteed livable income. Orlando began by showing how our pursuit for a just, peaceful, and equitable world is inextricably connected to the environment. She zeroed in on the carbon fee and dividend policy as a very promising approach for climate justice, poverty alleviation, and re-distribution of wealth.
A carbon fee and dividend scheme is often likened to a “Robin Hood climate tax” which taxes carbon polluters, and gives the revenue back to citizens in the form of a monthly check (the dividend). It is a way of re-distributing wealth that works to discourage fossil fuel use, spur clean energy investment, and reduce CO2 emissions. The common thread, Orlando argues, is the analogous nature of the carbon dividend and basic income – which are both aimed at redistributing wealth to the poor. This, she remarked, “reduces inequality [as] the poor are more carbon virtuous inherently and the top one percent of earners in Canada consume six times as much as the bottom ten percent.”
After the panelists’ presentations, a conversation took place between the panel and various community respondents including Sean Devine of Revenue de Base Quebec, Vincent Duhamel from Climate Justice Montreal, Paul Clarke from Réfugiés Montréal and Penny Beames, organizer of McGill’s Sustainability Research Symposium. They explored further aspects on guaranteed livable income and a sustainable future. Among the issues raised was the question of how refugees figure into the discussion of a Canadian basic income – an important question in lieu of the millions of people who are, and will be, displaced because of climate change.
For instance, members of the panel agreed that basic income should be granted regardless of immigration status, which Mah noted is a position held by the organization Asian Women for Equality. Another issue brought up was how a basic income would render people less prone to over-consumption. In response, the panelists reflected that a basic income could provide stability, allow self-reflection, and strengthen social networks. They offered this as a possible explanation as to how guaranteed livable income might counteract over-consumption – a central issue in any conversation about sustainability.
In the end, the discussion highlighted the opportunities and challenges of a policy approach that would promote granting people an equal share of the wealth, and perhaps also protect the health of our environment.
The relationship between poverty and the planet is complex, which raised a myriad of questions and concerns, such as the potentially harmful impacts of ‘clean’ energy sources like land loss and displacement of vulnerable peoples, children’s rights, and the broader issue of how this relates to, or challenges, the existing paradigm of economic growth. Nonetheless, the panel discussion helped to shed light on some of the ways in which a guaranteed livable income might help us live more sustainably, addressing issues of climate justice and the protection and empowerment of society’s most vulnerable. Mah noted that Asian Women for Equality “sees it as a fundamental shift away from our culture of maximized profits, consumerism and exploitation, toward a world of mutuality, beneficence, and sustainable living – both for people and for the environment.”
Perhaps, more of us have begun to envision what this peaceful, equitable, and sustainable world will look like going forward.
