For too many years Canada has danced around what is perhaps the central issue in social policy development. What are the most basic needs of Canadian citizens?

If one were to read a recent report from the Mowat Centre called Working Without a Net: Rethinking Canada’s Social Policy in the New Age of Work one wouldn’t think it was money.

The new report written by Sunil Johal and Jordann Thirgood attempts to make sense of of the real problems facing labour markets in a thorough way, particularly the increasingly precarious nature of work. However, the authors curiously limit themselves to six social policy areas – Employment Insurance and training, pensions, healthcare, child care, housing and employment standards. The report then does a pretty good job of showing how these particular programs are not meeting the challenges facing the labour market.

The problem with their selective focus is that it leaves out an obvious contender for retooling social policy – income transfers. Wouldn’t basic needs include a Basic Income for Canadians? This is vital to deal with increasing inequality and poverty, coupled with decreasing opportunity.

In fact, one of the challenges they pose asks “how we best move forward with a society that provides all citizens with basic needs…”

The paper seems to accept counter-intuitively that the basic needs of citizens are dominated by childcare, healthcare and affordable housing. These are called the foundational programs that the report suggests needs strengthening. What about adequate incomes with which to buy the necessities of life like food, clothing, transportation and more — things not directly provided by public programs?

Some recognition is given to selected transfers, such as reforms of Canada Pension Plan and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada Child Benefit and the Working Income Tax Benefit, which should be “reviewed for adequacy and coverage.”

Some lip-service is also provided to the inadequacy of social assistance. But it is very selective. Only once in the entire report do the authors even ponder transformational change when they discuss the issue of a guaranteed annual income (or Basic Income) and then only dismissively.

Depicting this Basic Income as a payout to every Canadian of $15,000 each per year (i.e., $500 billion based on a population of 33 million) is nonsensical. Almost no one is arguing for a fully universal Basic Income in that sense. However, a Basic Income that is there to ensure people do not drop egregiously below the poverty line – say $15,000 or even $20,000 per year – and with a tax-back rate of 30-50 per cent is perfectly affordable. We would do this by rearranging the existing system of non-refundable and refundable tax credits. As well, there will be substantial savings by collapsing the inadequate welfare system. All of this can be done without reducing spending on other programs.

A Basic Income is the most cost-effective way of addressing both low incomes and volatile earnings, and would be a complement to affordable housing, health care and childcare, not a substitute. Indeed, it seems to be an ideal instrument for dealing with the problems of precarious employment so well outlined in the first half of the Mowat paper.

The paper makes the absurd claim that a Basic Income “would become a more realistic alternative in a job-free future, where capital resides in the hands of the few, who are taxed to provide for the needs of the many.”

The need for a Basic Income Guarantee cannot wait for such an unlikely future. It is important for policy makers and think tanks not to fall victim to what Professor Deborah Stone calls ‘path dependence.’ This is the idea that early policy decisions establish institutions and procedures that perpetuate themselves, making it difficult to find other solutions or even to adjust original policy at all.

Canada can’t afford to stay on the same path. We can’t afford a lack of creativity in social policy any longer as the inequality gap widens. The most basic needs of all Canadians are not being met and a Basic Income would address this challenge head on.

— Robin Boadway is an economist at Queen’s University and is former editor of the Canadian Journal of Economics. Roderick Benns is the publisher of Leaders and Legacies and is the author of Basic Income: How a Canadian Movement Could Change the World.

December 6, 2016 marks the 27 anniversary of the mass femicide at École Polytechnique. Vigils will be held across Canada to commemorate the murder of 14 female engineering students.

On that day in 1989 a lone gunman entered a classroom of 60 engineering students and ordered the men to leave. The murderer was heard to scream, “I hate feminists,” before opening fire with the intent of killing as many women as he could.

Anne St-Arneault, 23; Geneviève Bergeron, 21; Hélène Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Klueznick, 31; Maryse Laganière, 25; Maryse Leclair, 23; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 23; Michèle Richard, 21; and Annie Turcotte, 21 were murdered because they were female.

This single act of violence meant to terrorize, intimidate and coerce women and girls let all Canadians know there are no sanctuaries or safe havens for women and girls. There can be no denying this vicious act targeted women in general and feminists in particular.

Absurdly, the shooter failed to realize both women and men can be feminists. Supporting women’s equality and recognizing women’s rights are human rights is all that’s necessary to be a feminist.

As devastating and horrible as the massacre at Ecole Polythechnique was, I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the largest ongoing mass femicide in Canadian history – the targeting of Canada’s Aboriginal women and girls dating back to the time of first contact.

In no way is this inclusion meant to detract from the importance of the massacre that resulted in December 6 being declared the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Canada. Instead, including our Aboriginal sisters who have been murdered or gone missing at the hands of male perpetrators must be included in this day of remembrance because their femicide is a catastrophe of epic proportion with effects that have touched every aspect of Aboriginal life.

Since first contact, Europeans have undermined and usurped the authority and power of First Nations, Inuit and Metis women and girls. This was institutionalized through the implementation of the Indian Act which effectively stripped Aboriginal women and girls of their basic human rights.

Every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner, but Aboriginal women are killed at rates six to seven times greater than those of non-Aboriginal women.

Aboriginal women are almost three times more likely to be killed by a stranger than non-Aboriginal women.

The RCMP estimate a total of 1,181 Aboriginal women went missing or were murdered between 1980 and 2012. Grassroots organizations and the Minister of the Status of Women put the number closer to 4,000. But, this number does not even begin to reflect the true number of Aboriginal women and girls who have been the victims of large scale femicide for the past 150 years.

December 6^th is a day of remembrance and mourning, but it should also be a day when we remind our politicians at every level of government that in order to end gendered violence we need to have true equality for all women and girls.

It starts by designing policies, laws, institutions, services, agencies and organizations using a gendered lens. That can only happen if when there’s equal representation of men and women at all levels of government, on company boards, and in positions with decision making power.

But, let’s be realistic, these are long standing institutions that are not welcoming of change – especially when the ruling elite are asked to share the power and control that they have enjoyed for decades if not centuries.

So, we may need to shake things up a little. So, take a moment before you don your coat and venture out into the cold to stand in solidarity with your sisters and brothers to commemorate a very sad day in Canadian history. In that moment, sign on to your computer and sign your name to the Leap Manifesto.

Let’s create a new Canada based on caring for the earth and one another.

***

To help with understanding the issue of missing and murdered Aboriginal women, I’d like to offer a film for adults to watch and a wonderful children’s book for all ages.

Watch the National Film Board movie, This River:

The 20 minute film by Katherena Vermette and Erica MacPherson follows the spiritually and emotionally challenging work performed by the volunteer members of Drag the Red (river) Organization based in Winnipeg. This film won the 2016 Coup de Coeur Award at the Montreal First Peoples Festival.

DTR originally organized to shame the Winnipeg police department into searching for missing Aboriginal women and men. Instead the DTR continues to drag the river on a daily basis from May to October. Ground crews search the riverbanks weekly.

DTR is run entirely by volunteers many of whom have missing family members so locating a body is always better sweet.

This River was made available for free starting on the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

Need a gift this holiday season? Then buy multiple copies of author Melanie Florence’s book Missing Nimama.  The winner of the 2016 TD Children’s Book Award, Missing Nimama is a child-centered reflection on missing and murdered Indigenous women.

A young girl is raised by her grandmother after her own mother goes missing. The story is told through the voices of the young girl, her grandmother, and her missing mother who watches over her as she grows up.

It’s time to share the story with all of our children so they know the truth and so that history does not repeat itself.

Over the years my wardrobe has expanded to include a purple skirt, several purple blouses, dresses, pants, amethyst jewellery, and of course scarves. November 1^st each year I light up my porch with strings of purple mini lights. I do this to draw attention to the fact that November is Woman Abuse Prevention month in Ontario.

But, on Friday, November 25^th I will be wearing my favourite orange turtle neck sweater along with my purple infinity scarf as I do my part to Orange the World to end violence against women and girls.

Friday marks the start of the United Nations 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, from International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on November 25^th to Human Rights Day on December 10^th.

Violence against women and intimate partner violence is a human rights violation. All women and girls have the right to live free from all forms of violence and the fear of violence. UNiTE to End Violence against Women uses ORANGE as a unifying theme symbolizing a brighter future. Buildings and significant structures around the world will be lit orange every night.

During these 16 days and nights, women, men, girls and boys, politicians and citizens will stand in solidarity to show support for women’s rights. They’ll also be reinforcing the rights of victims and survivors to full protection from the law including perpetrators accepting responsibility while facing appropriate legal consequences under the law.

Interventions must consider the immediate and ongoing safety of survivors; empower her to make her own decisions; recognize and meet the language and cultural needs of diverse backgrounds and communities; acknowledge and support the rights of individuals to information and resources to change violent circumstances.

This is a tremendous mandate to achieve, but as Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, UN Women Executive Director has stated, “The price of no change is unacceptable. We believe in and work for a world where women and girls can flourish and prosper peacefully alongside men and boys, sharing in and benefitting from societies that value their skills and accept their leadership.”

This year’s theme, Orange the World: Raise Money to End Violence against Women and Girls, brings the issue of sustainable financing for initiatives to the forefront. Sustainable financing is imperative to effectively prevent and end violence against women and girls here at home and around the world.

A systemic problem to achieving sustainable ongoing funding to eradicate gendered violence is the universal invisibility of women. The invisibility of women and the magnitude of gendered violence are amplified when intersecting oppressions are part of the equation.

Ableism, racism, discrimination based on poverty, heterosexism, sexism, classism, ethnocentrism, transphobia, homophobia, and ageism are a few of the persecutions that keep women trapped in the cycle of violence.

Colonialization, capitalism, politics, globalization and war compound the oppressions women face and make it increasingly difficult for them to exercise their human rights.

Even when there are laws prohibiting certain practices often local rituals override the laws. Child marriage is a case in point. According to the UN, 15 million girls are married before the age of 18 every year. That is 28 girls every minute or 1 every 2 seconds. That looks like this, one in nine girls is married under 15 years of age while in three girls is married before 18. And, don’t kid yourself, child brides happen in Canada. Think of Bountiful, B.C.

Often, the practice involves kidnapping, raping and then marrying an under-age girl. Once raped she is damaged property and no other man will have her so she is forced to marry her rapist. This ends her childhood, access to education, chances for a better life, and puts her at heightened risk of dying in childbirth, living in poverty, and living with intimate partner violence.

Should the young woman escape she will most likely be sent back to live with her abuser. Should she kill him she will most likely find herself on trial for murder.

Often there are laws in place which make it illegal to rape women with the intention of forcing them into marriage, but often these laws are overlooked or not enforced and so the practice continues unabated.

Here in Canada we have a similar situation when it comes to rape because the laws in place are not necessarily enforced by the police or the legal system. Perhaps more disturbing is the reality that rape is not always seen as a crime and even when it is, the victim is put on trial rather than the rapist.

Each year there are 460,000 sexual assaults in Canada. For every 1,000 sexual assaults 33 are reported to police; 29 are recorded as a crime; 12 have charges laid; 6 are prosecuted; 3 lead to conviction; and 997 assailants walk free.

We live in a society where there is systemic discrimination against women and a rampant rape culture. Often bystanders are reluctant to play that pivotal role of interrupting the rape or at the very least, contacting police.

Femicide is the ultimate form of violence against women and girls. It exists in every country and takes many forms. It is when a woman or girl is killed simply because she is female. It occurs because violence against women continues to be accepted, tolerated and justified. It is rooted in gender inequality, gender expectations, and systemic gender-based discrimination.

Femicide takes many forms and crosses cultural, religious and racial divides. A woman or girl may find her life threatened if she:

• is born female (female infanticide)
• marries for love
• brings an insufficient dowry
• has a relationship outside of marriage
• has a relationship outside the approved group
• loses her virginity before marriage
• becomes pregnant outside of marriage
• spends time without the supervision of a family member
• reports domestic violence
• attempts to get a divorce
• tries to get custody of her children during or after a divorce
• refuses to divorce when ordered to do so by family members
• has an abusive intimate partner
• is singled out by a mass murderer as was the case at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal (1989)
• is considered disposable by men as in the case of Aboriginal women and sex workers

In Canada, our Aboriginal sisters have a long history of living with the fear of femicide dating back to first contact.  It took international pressure from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women as well as demands from Aboriginal leaders, Aboriginal women and ordinary Canadians to get a national inquiry into our missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls. Let’s hope the federal government gets this inquiry right and implements the recommendations in a timely manner with enough funding to make fundamental changes to end this systemic femicide.

Unfortunately, Canadians are now seeing cases of femicide being dismissed from court rather than being prosecuted because the accused was not tried within a reasonable time. However, a stalling tactic used by defendants in these cases is to repeatedly fire and hire lawyers representing their case. The time delays are assigned to the case and not to the defendant. Based on this misinformation judges can dismiss cases. Once again, the perpetrator goes free.

Violence against women and girls is a global epidemic and it exists in every possible form right here in Canada. We are in no way immune to gendered violence nor the devastation and destruction left in its wake.

During the 16 days of activism wear orange to show your solidarity and commitment to eliminating violence against women in Canada and around the world. More importantly, consider one action you can take or event you can attend that will help make a change in the lives of women in your life, community, province, or somewhere in the world. Then do it!

Purple is a colour that calms the mind and nerves; offers a sense of spirituality; and encourages creativity. It’s also the colour of courage. Purple embodies the ingredients necessary to move a woman from a place of fear to one of empowerment.

November is Woman Abuse Prevention Month in Ontario, a time to shine a purple light on gendered violence. Woman abuse takes many forms including physical, sexual, psychological or emotional, intellectual, social, financial, verbal, cyber bullying, stalking, manipulating children, environmental, and spiritual violence.

Gendered violence is the means by which an abuser maintains power and control over his intimate partner. This inherent right to power and control is rooted in patriarchal society where men hold the power and lineage is traced through male heirs.

Gender inequality permeates every level of our lives. It’s found within Canadian politics, the various levels of government, the judicial system, health care, social services, media, cultural practices, workplaces, religions, and families. Every day we are exposed to a torrent of messages, direct and indirect, telling us men have an innate right to power and women don’t. Unfortunately, some men believe this right includes controlling women even if it means using violence or lethality.

Women are not a homogeneous group. Far from it. Our experience of violence is informed by who we are and the variety of unjust treatments we live with. This intersection of oppressions plays a significant role in determining a woman’s chances of experiencing violence, as well as the severity of the violence, during her lifetime. These oppressions include, but are not limited to, ableism, racism, discrimination, heterosexism, sexism, classism, ethnocentrism, transphobia, ageism, and homophobia. The more oppressions that a woman identifies with the greater her chances of being marginalized and encountering violence.

Canada’s First Nations, Inuit, and Metis women, referred to collectively as indigenous women, have a history of oppressions dating back to first contact with Europeans. The multiple oppressions indigenous women live with on a daily basis means they are subject to a disproportionate risk of violence, especially more severe violent episodes, than non-Aboriginal Canadian women.

Rates of violence against women vary widely across Canada, but Aboriginal women are 2.5 times more likely to be victims of violence than non-Aboriginal women.

The territories consistently record the highest rates of police-reported violence against women. The rate of violent crime against women in Nunavut was close to 13 times higher than the rate for Canada in 2011. Saskatchewan and Manitoba, had rates of violence against women in 2011 that were double the national rate.

Every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner, but Aboriginal women are killed at six to seven times the rate of non-Aboriginal women.

Aboriginal women are almost three times more likely to be killed by a stranger than non-Aboriginal women.

Saskatchewan comprehensively reviewed its long-term missing persons’ files and found that while Aboriginal women make up 6 per cent of the population, they account for 60 per cent of its missing women.

The RCMP estimate a total of 1,181 Aboriginal women went missing or were murdered between 1980 and 2012. Grassroots organizations and the Minister of the Status of Women put the number closer to 4,000.

Why are Aboriginal women experiencing violence at far greater rates than non-Aboriginal women? In one word, colonialism. The introduction of European patriarchal practices purposely undermined the essential roles women once played in Aboriginal societies.

Traditionally, Aboriginal women were the givers of life and as such, lineage was often traced through mothers and family units were often matrilocal in nature. Women were a child’s first teachers with lessons of love beginning in the womb. Land and resources were also often managed and distributed by Aboriginal women giving them significant power. Inheritance, wealth, power, culture and history were passed on to successive generations through women.

This changed when Europeans arrived. In their zeal to secure ownership of resource rich land, Europeans intentionally undermined the power and authority of Aboriginal women.

The Indian Act, passed in 1876, was a paternalistic government policy put in place to eventually assimilate First Nations people through enfranchisement, a legal process for terminating a person’s Indian status in order to impose full Canadian citizenship upon them. Most often, this citizenship was executed without consent. Metis and Inuit peoples are exempt from The Indian Act.

This act gave government agents the power to enforce government policy that controlled virtually every aspect of the lives of registered First Nations people and the reserves they were forced to live on. These powers included registering births and marriages; establishing who was eligible for status; and enforcing punishments when imposed rules were disobeyed.

First Nations women have suffered, and continue to suffer, great inequalities under this federal law. They have been enfranchised for getting a university education; becoming a doctor, lawyer or member of the clergy; leaving their reserve to seek employment or leave an abusive situation; marrying non-First Nations men; becoming widowed; or being abandoned by their husbands.

Many First Nations laws allowed for divorce, but government agents had the authority to charge a First Nations woman with bigamy if she divorced and moved in with a new husband. Government agents could also impose punishments like sending the offending woman to a reformatory. In this role, government agents were the administrators of imposed colonial morality. They dictated what decisions and actions were considered good and decent and they handed out severe punishments for infractions.

Children were routinely removed from their parents at the age of five in order to attend residential school until their release at 18 years of age. Over 150,000 stolen Aboriginal children attended these institutions from the 1870’s until the last school closed in 1996.

Aboriginal children were exposed to physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological abuses. The cruelty also included isolation from family and siblings, as well as torture. Deprived of the love of their parents, these children were robbed of the opportunity to learn how to become loving partners and parents. Denied interaction with their brothers and sisters, these children were robbed of a lifetime of familial love and support. The injurious effects of this assimilation policy are still very much with us today.

Aside from attending residential school, government agents were given the power to remove Aboriginal children from their families if they were being exposed to outlawed cultural practices. Falling under this umbrella was singing traditional songs, dancing, attending potlatches, and practicing their spiritual beliefs.

The Sixties Scoop overlapped with the residential school system. Child protection services were given the authority to “scoop up” Aboriginal children and place them in non-Aboriginal foster homes. This policy also allowed non-Aboriginal families to adopt the children. Beginning in the 1960’s this practice continued until the late 1980’s.

Even today, children living on reserve continue to be denied access to the same level of services as children living in the rest of Canada. In 2007, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations filed a complaint against Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada based on Section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Specifically, the complaint accused the federal government of knowingly underfunding family and child support services on First Nations reserves thereby creating inequalities based solely on the children’s origins.

In order to qualify for services readily available across the rest of Canada, children on reserve have to be apprehended and placed in foster care, most often in non-Native homes. This explains the 71.5 percent increase in the number of First Nations children entering care between 1995 and 2001.

In January 2016, after a nine year legal battle, the tribunal found in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered immediate action. To date, the Liberal government has breached the terms of the recommendations twice and is in jeopardy of sending the case back to court. We, as a nation and a federal government, have not learned from our mistakes and are continuing to make detrimental choices that are impacting First Nations women and their children.

The Indian Act restructured First Nations society into a carbon copy of patriarchal roles found throughout Europe. It destroyed the traditional extended family model and replaced it with the nuclear family commonly found throughout Europe.

Dependence of First Nations women on First Nations men was legislated into being in 1851 when the federal government determined that to be considered First Nations you had to be male, be the child of a male, or be married to a male. First Nations women became a non-entity and had their independence stolen from them because status would forever be dependent upon having a prescribed relationship with a First Nations male. This doctrine gave birth to the terms Status and Non-Status.

Should a First Nations woman lose her status then she would be denied treaty benefits; health benefits; the rights to live on reserve, inherit family property, and even be buried on the reserve with her ancestors. If a First Nations woman married a First Nations man from another band she forfeited her right to remain in her band and was forced to join her husband’s band. Becoming a widow or being abandoned by a First Nations husband meant a First Nations woman became enfranchised and lost her status and rights.

Division of property and inheritance under the Indian Act ensured First Nations women could not possess land or marital property unless widowed. But, even widows were prohibited from inheriting their husband’s personal property unless deemed of good moral character by the government agent. To this day, First Nations men retain exclusive rights to property even when relationships end. This has a tremendous impact on First Nations women and their children living with, leaving, or healing from abusive relationships.

Political involvement of First Nations women was denied when the federal government created male centric band governments precluding women from becoming chiefs or band councilors. This meant First Nations women were prohibited from providing input into decisions affecting them, their families, and their communities. Dissenters were jailed.

It was 1951 before First Nations women were allowed to vote in band elections. It wasn’t until 1960 that First Nations women and men were allowed to vote federally in Canadian elections. Inuit were allowed to vote federally in 1950. Unfortunately, it proved impossible for them to cast their ballots until 1962 the first year that ballot boxes were made available. Metis men were able to vote federally prior to confederation, yet I’m unable to determine the year that Metis women were allowed to vote federally.

This brief, and vastly inadequate, history lays bare the fact that the federal government of Canada stripped First Nations, Inuit, and Metis women of the essential roles they played within their families, communities, government, culture, and history.

Worse than that, the misogynous European dogmas imposed dictated the constituents of a good upstanding moral woman onto Aboriginal society. Over time these doctrines have woven their way into the fabric of First Nations society and are now considered commonplace. First Nations women were very effectively turned into non-persons within their own families, communities, and societies as well as the larger Eurocentric world.

Aboriginal people believe it takes five generations to fix mistakes. There’s no time like the present to acknowledge Canada’s role in creating a country that often sees women, and especially Aboriginal women, as disposable and less than deserving. The destruction caused by denying Aboriginal women and girls their human rights needs to be redressed.

The inquiry into our missing and murdered Indigenous women (MMIW) and girls is an epic undertaking.  Canada has one opportunity to thoroughly understand the effect disenfranchisement has had on Aboriginal women and girls. Because truthfully, disenfranchisement is exactly what our federal government imposed on Aboriginal women and girls for centuries.  The federal government has established a long history of very successfully depriving Aboriginal women of their rights, privileges, power, and self-determination.

However, the recommendations coming from the inquiry into our MMIW must be implemented not only in a timely manner, but with sufficient funding to ensure the root causes of violence against Aboriginal women and girls in Canada are adequately redressed. An important component will undoubtedly be education not simply for all Canadian children, but for every one of us regardless of age because we all have a lot of unlearning to do.

October 16 is World Food Day. First observed in 1979, World Food Day honours the creation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on October 16, 1945 in Quebec, Canada.

This year’s theme, Climate is changing. Food and agriculture must too, builds upon the FAO’s vision of achieving food security for all through regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active, healthy lives.

The FAO’s three main goals are:

• The eradication of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition.
• The elimination of poverty and the driving forward of economic and social progress for all.
• The sustainable management and utilization of natural resources, including land, water, air, climate and genetic resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

By creating resilient, productive and sustainable global agricultural practices, and reducing food waste, the FAO hopes to end global hunger by 2030. Realistically, climate change aside, is it even possible to end global hunger?

As a teen I read Frances Moore Lappe’s book, Diet for a Small Planet. I remember thinking it made complete sense to reduce meat consumption in order to improve global food security. It took a little longer for me to realize that greed and politics have far more to do with the ongoing global hunger crisis than a lack of bounty. Forty years later not much has changed – we just have better methods of tracking the problem as it continues to grow in size, scope and severity.

• 1/3 of all food produced for human consumption is never consumed because waste happens in production, packaging, distribution, sales, and consumption. That’s equivalent to $750 billion.
• 1.3 billion tons of food valued at $31 billion is wasted annually in Canada alone.
• When the additional costs of energy, time and water are calculated into the equation the actual cost of food waste in Canada is closer to $107 billion annually.
• In 2015 food banks helped over 1.7 million Canadians.
• 1 in 6 food bank clients are, or have recently been, employed.
• 110,000 Canadians in rural communities rely on food banks.
• 47 percent of children living in northern Canada don’t know if there will be a next meal.
• World food waste releases carbon dioxide in amounts equal to 700 million cars annually.
• Food waste in landfills releases methane and contributes to climate change.

So, it’s clear individuals can significantly reduce their ecological footprint by reducing the amount of food they waste, but how does that evolve into eradicating hunger in Canada and around the world by 2030?

First of all, Canadians shouldn’t have to wait another 14 years for food security. However, compared to the lack of progress made to reduce child poverty across the country over the past 25 years and this becomes a relatively more palatable timeline.

To replace hunger with food security Canada needs:

1. A guaranteed basic income to ensure every Canadian can purchase adequate amounts of culturally appropriate food.
2. A living wage and conscious move away from the practice of precarious employment as the norm.
3. All provinces to follow British Columbia’s lead to end the claw back of child support from sole custodial parents on social assistance. This includes Ontario where the Wynne government announced in February 2016 that this practice would end, but has yet to implement the change.
4. A national food policy that includes creative solutions for issues of food insecurity unique to northern regions.
5. To support local family farm and co-operative initiatives producing a wide variety of genetically diverse crops to mitigate the effects of climate change. To stop corporations from patenting life.
6. To ensure corporations are held accountable when their genetically modified products contaminate non-GMO farms, gardens and neighbourhoods.
7. To protect farmland from development because a country that can’t feed itself is at the mercy of its supplier and in this case the US isn’t looking too friendly if Donald Trump becomes president. In 2006, 7.3 percent of Canada’s land was considered arable, but a mere 5 percent was considered prime or dependable.
8. Increased incentives for low input farms, certified organic farms and community supported agriculture.
9. Stop bottlers of water, corporations, mining companies and golf courses from using public water or acquiring aquifers for private use.
10. A national housing strategy including federal investment in affordable housing.
11. A national pharmaceuticals strategy.
12. A national child care strategy.

Once we ensure food security for Canadians what role will we play in ending global hunger? How do we stop food from being used as a weapon of war? How do we prohibit corporations from buying up large tracks of land to grow cash crops at the expense of locals’ food security? How do we prevent corporations from patenting life and holding farmers hostage using designer seeds and terminator technology? How do we put an end to corporations buying up water rights? How can we continue to justify our role in perpetuating climate change when it places poorer countries at even greater risk of food insecurity?

Greed and politics will continue to prevent us from ending world hunger unless a universal change of consciousness occurs. Our self-centered, self-serving means of national and international production and distribution have failed to lessen hunger here at home and around the world. Climate change remains secondary to creating jobs and growing the economy even though these goals needn’t be mutually exclusive. War continues to rage within Canada in the form of the oppression of women, Indigenous peoples, racialized and visible ethnic groups, workers, and the poor.  If we can’t significantly address these home grown issues, how do we expect to make a positive international contribution to ensuring global food security?

Improving individual, national and international food security requires a complex set of solutions addressing the intersecting causes that can be quite unique to each individual and country based on their experience of oppression and discrimination.

World Food Day is a stark reminder that simply producing more food, or wasting less of what we produce, will never get food into the mouths and bellies of those who desperately need it yet can’t afford to grow or buy it.

This article originally appeared on Raise the Hammer.

In a recent 2015 paper, Ronald Labonte and David Stuckler argue that the rise of neoliberalism has led to bad economics which in turn has imperiled population health.

They argue that cuts to health and social protection systems under neoliberal nations (like Canada and the US) pose major health risks. As well, structural changes to a new globalized labour market has led to precarious work and rampant under-employment.

Analyses show, say the authors, that the reduction in “social protection spending” by governments were found “to be the main cause of increases in poverty and inequality” in affected countries. By increasing or failing to reduce inequality, they write, any earlier health gains were slowed down or reversed earlier gains. This affected vulnerable populations such as “the poor, rural populations, women, and children.”

Labonte and Stuckler (from the University of Ottawa and University of Oxford, respectively) argue that there are four policy reform areas that can be made to stop this decline and improve health outcomes.

• Re-regulating global finance
• Reject austerity measures
• Restore and increase progressive taxation
• Tax financial transactions at a global level (for instance, bond and share sales alone, taxed at just .05 percent would yield $410 billion to $8.63 trillion for global health, social development, and climate change initiatives.)

It is their second point, on rejecting austerity, where it is obvious that a basic income could be of global help and consequence, even though the authors themselves do not make this point. The authors note that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) discovered that for “every dollar in new government spending, up to $1.70 in economic growth would occur.”

A basic income would put more money into the hands of more people. The cost of this is clearly outweighed by the fact that people with low incomes must spend all the money they earn each month, making it an obvious win for the economy. Wealthier people hang on to more of their money, or, in many cases, even move it offshore where there is less taxation.

Labonte and Stuckler write that government spending in health and social protection not only “improves health equity and contributes to social stability but also boosts economic growth.”

Countries that increase social spending during economic recessions recover much faster. Austerity in hard times make things “worse for the poor, but better for the rich.”

Clearly, Canada and other neoliberal nations must make seismic shifts in economic and social policy. One of the best things governments could do is institute a basic income guarantee which would serve not only to mitigate poverty, but also stimulate economic growth for the country.

Alanis Obomsawin’s powerful documentary, We Can’t Make the Same Mistake Twice,’ debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in September.  The film chronicles the nine year legal battle initiated by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada (FNCFCS) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) against the Harper government.

In 2007, the FNCFCS and the AFN filed a complaint against Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada (INAC) based on Section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The complaint accused the federal government of knowingly underfunding family and child support services on First Nations reserves creating inequalities based solely on the children’s origins.

Children living on reserve had to be apprehended and placed in foster care in order to qualify for services that were readily available to all other children across Canada. This policy is the reason that Indigenous children are six to eight times more likely to be in foster care, in predominantly non-Native homes, than other Canadian children. It’s also responsible for the 71.5% increase in First Nations children entering care from 1995 to 2001.

During the course of the film, it became evident that the system of service delivery on reserve was racially biased and purposely designed to fail. Basing a funding formula on the size of the child and youth population being served rather than need within the community is an inherently flawed way of delivering services. The greatest impact is felt by small communities, many of whom have a disproportionate need.

During the nine years the case was argued, the federal government made multiple attempts to have the complaint dismissed.  The Harper government withheld over 90,000 key documents.  The government also investigated Dr. Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director of the FNCFCS and chief witness for the applicants.

Eventually, the tribunal heard 72 days of testimony which ended October 24, 2015. On January 26, 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled the Canadian government discriminates against First Nations children by inequitably funding child welfare services and by failing to fully implement Jordan’s Principle.

Jordan’s Principle was a private members motion that unanimously passed in the House of Commons on December 12, 2007. Jordan’s Principle established that where intergovernmental disputes over payment for services exist, the level of government that has first contact assumes all costs of child services and continues to pay them until a settlement regarding jurisdictional disputes is reached.  Jordan’s Principle applies exclusively to First Nation children on reserve.

This is the point where Obomsawin’s documentary ends.  But, despite the FNCFCS winning a landmark case that would improve the lives of 163,000 First Nations children, Obomsawin sagely observed in our phone conversation, “You win, but what do you win?” Today, despite the ruling of the tribunal, the discrimination continues for on reserve children under the current government’s watch.

In March 2016, the federal government released an overview of funding for First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) as outlined in the 2016 federal budget. According to the FNCFCS site, $634.8 million has been allocated over five years for the FNCFS Program.

However, the $71 million allocated for 2016/17 falls far short of what INAC said was required back in 2012. Federal government officials testifying before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal confirmed that federal government internal documents dated 2012 indicate that the funding shortfall for First Nations Child and Family Services was 108.13 million per annum plus 3 per cent inflation.

The $71 million doesn’t even come close to the $216 million the FNCFCS had hoped for in immediate relief pending long term program reform that would more adequately address the needs of on reserve children.

On April 26, 2016, the Tribunal made further orders regarding immediate relief. The Tribunal found that implementing Jordan’s Principle over the course of 12 months put the federal government in breach of fulfilling the Tribunal’s January 26, 2016 order to “immediately implement the full meaning and scope of Jordan’s Principle.” The Tribunal ordered the federal government to immediately apply Jordan’s Principle to all jurisdictional disputes.

On May 10, 2016 the Government of Canada responded to the Tribunal’s order to immediately implement the full meaning and scope of Jordan’s Principle. As described on the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada website, the government expanded its application of Jordan’s Principle to:

• Eliminate the requirement that the First Nations child on reserve must have multiple disabilities that require multiple service providers.

• Apply to all jurisdictional disputes including those between federal government departments.

• Ensure appropriate services for any Jordan’s principle case not be delayed by case conferencing or policy review.

On July 6, 2016, the federal government submitted another compliance report to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in which government committed to invest up to $382 million to implement a broader application of Jordan’s Principle. However, the principle’s application continues to be limited to children living on reserve with a disability or short-term condition.

Clarification is needed to understand:

• What the funding announcement really means for children.

• Who the federal government is applying it to.

• How this proposed approach differs from the discriminatory approach that has been used up to now.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a second Compliance Order against the Government of Canada on the First Nations child welfare case on September 15, 2016.

The FNCFCS has since requested the commission register the original January 2016 ruling with the Federal Court as a means of initiating filing contempt proceedings against the federal government. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would prefer to see the dispute settled between the parties rather than in court in the hopes that children on reserve will have access to the services they deserve in a timely manner.

So, nine years later with definitive decision including directives, and a new government in power the lag in implementing the tribunal’s recommendations continues to prevent children on reserve from receiving the services that children across Canada take for granted.

There is also an underlying fear within the FNCFCS that the federal government may eventually appeal the tribunal’s findings. This is an accurate conclusion to draw since historically defendants often purposely drag out fulfilling court ordered obligations while secretly planning their next evasive step.

It’s important to remember that we are talking about the lives of children. And, these children are unique because they bring with them a history of colonization and genocide. As a nation we have the opportunity, and more importantly the obligation, to put an end to the discrimination that keeps on reserve children and youth from receiving the services available to all other children all across Canada.

Obomsawin’s documentary, We Can’t Make the Same Mistake Twice, will be screened Saturday, October 22 at 10 a.m. at the Toronto International Film Festival Bell Lightbox, 350 King St W, Toronto.

For more information about the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and to join their campaigns click here.

Part Two

If we hadn’t innovated in the past with respect to our social policy, we would have no Canada Pension Plan. We would have no Employment Insurance. We would have no Guaranteed Income Supplement. These safety nets of our present were unaffordable in our past according to their critics at the time.

Often, what we say is unaffordable is because of a current favouritism to one or multiple sectors of the economy. When we revaluate distribution of income, what seemed impossible or unaffordable begins to look like one giant step forward for humankind.

Every brilliant new idea is frightening at first. Like when the first horse saw the first locomotive. And how could we do without trains now?

A horse, a horse, a kingdom for a horse: why we need our social safety nets 

We would have had a dramatically more devastating financial crisis if we had not had these and other social safety nets that acted to maintain an economy that you and I are all part of. Since we say past is prologue, we had better learn from our past. The future becomes the present quickly.

Einstein taught us that time is relative. Where will the next Einstein come from?

During the great depression, unemployment was more than 25 per cent in Canada. In some cities, it was 50 percent. Without our safety nets, things would have been worse. We’re still facing the after effects. Today, some studies show that the rise of the machines will eliminate more than 50 per cent of our jobs. Imagine a crisis born out of a crisis we still haven’t dealt with.

When we talk about not having enough money now, what will we talk about then, when we have less money than now, and more unemployment, a smaller middle class, and, worst of all, a much bigger precariat?

We need to do the right thing now.

Design different 

Years ago a commercial presented us a machine, and that commercial asked us to ‘think different’ about a machine (and conceptually, about ourselves). Now, that we have designed machines to soon think differently, so differently that they are learning to think not only as fast as us but even faster, it’s also time for us to think about the design of a better society.

And then, to design it.

That’s exactly what the basic income movement is working toward.

It’s really up to us whether the rise of the machines is a revolution in human existence for the better or for the worse. If there was one thing we learned about the ‘iron horse’, it was that this new ‘horse’ didn’t wait for the future. The future was already there, and it would not be shod by a blacksmith. It would run on steel wheels and rails and carry cargo and human beings. It still does.

Rutger Bregman, in a recent CBC interview, said:

“They [mainstream media and government] ignored the idea. It all happened on a local level … If you look at progress in history or equal rights for men and women or the civil rights movement or the arrival of democracy, progress always starts on the periphery and then moves to the centre … you’re always at the beginning regarded as unreasonable, unrealistic and your ideas are regarded as unaffordable… Every milestone in civilization starts that way …”

Recently, the IMF has said this about basic income:

“We have implicitly assumed so far that income from capital remains highly unequally distributed. But the increase in overall output per person implies that everyone could be better off if income from capital is redistributed. The advantages of a basic income financed by capital taxation become obvious.”

In the future, unless we are designing a society for the betterment of machines, we have to think about what driverless machines are for. If the machines that drive us will soon be driverless, then we should work hard to design into the outcome of their increased productivity the ability to carry our society.

That is a machine worthy of invention. That is innovation.

Driven to design the betterment of the human being

In the end, as always, it will be our minds that make our world a better place for every man, woman and child. That’s why we are driven to design the machines in the first place, not for the betterment of the machines, but for the betterment of the human beings.

To do less will lead us to social, moral and economic bankruptcy.

With every decision we make, we improve or degrade our future in a way that will have great effect. We will determine our future, whether we design a solution like a basic income guarantee, or we let the status quo put us out to pasture. If we are to spend a new future out to pasture, let it be by our own design, where we have focused on re-framing our worth while benefiting the many. Let’s harness all our human creativity to create a better world because soon the machines will work and think and dream of sheep.

Part One

Some critics of basic income argue that people will become lazy should we implement basic income in Ontario or Canada. Is there any logic to such thinking?

Is it logical to use deprivation to keep people in jobs that don’t pay? Do we really expect a growing precariat to believe in society if societal attitudes are to carry a big stick when it comes to poverty? Does the mother, the student, the recently unemployed, the person now working a low wage believe in social justice? What happens when people stop trusting in governments, the stock market and other institutions?

We used to use a whip to drive our horses and our buggies forward. Is that how we want to treat our fellow human beings? By using a big stick?

How well did the big stick of days gone by function when there was no longer a horse pulling a carriage? How well did it function when the horse doing the work was now an ‘iron horse’, and that ‘iron horse’ was born in assembly? Especially, as the human hands of assembly are becoming robot hands. And, as we are learning that one day the robots may even dream.

What if the horses that were replaced by the locomotive were human beings?

When it comes to the creation of policy, even if we have laudable intentions like, ecological sustainability, the development of green technologies, equality and helping people out of poverty, we can’t leave others in a state of precariousness. We have to measure our policy by how many it will lift up. We also need to moderate the detrimental effects of technology.

We have problems …

This year ‘… a parade of CEOs met in secret to examine the sorry state of publicly traded companies’. They included Warren Buffett amongst them, who has said: “The rich have come back strong from the 2008 panic and the middle class haven’t and that effects demand and that effects the economy,” speaking to CNN. “We don’t need to have the extremes of inequality that we have. The people at the bottom end should be doing better. I think it behooves this very rich country to have less inequality than we have.” Buffett’s always been very good at simplifying complex topics.

While Buffet may have been speaking specifically about the U.S., is Canada not a rich country? Wouldn’t less inequality be a laudable goal for Canada as well?

While you may not agree with everything the above group of privileged individuals think, the fact that they think there’s a problem should tell you that there is one. It’s impossible to deny there’s a problem as some later data will show.

Even if you don’t believe the evidence before your eyes or the thousands of advocates for improvement on social policy, the precariat, basic income, etcetera, take a look at how Canadians feel about things and extrapolate that feeling out to how such feelings will affect the economy if you believe the economy will take care of itself. Has it taken care of itself since the financial crisis?

… And we have trust issues

So, we’re not only facing a dilemma brought on by our technology, but one of wealth redistribution, one where people have deep distrust of government, how we raise capital and invest to improve our future. Studies show serious problems:

• Trust in public institutions has declined especially in the wake of the financial crisis.
• The decline in the financial sector is especially large.
• Countries that experienced the largest rise in unemployment saw public confidence in national governments and the finance sector decline ‘particularly dramatically.’

How is this new normal of high unemployment world-wide and economic malaise perpetuating the lack of public confidence in national governments and financial institutions? In an increasingly global world where information is shared quickly, public trust issues in government and organizations are shared at the speed of light, too. This creates a vicious downward spiral for an economy since economies depend on trust in order to function at a near-optimal level for the greatest number of people. When people feel that they’re in a rigged casino, they ask themselves, why should I play fair? In order to gain support for policy shifts, government needs to win trust in order to win support.

In order to do the right thing, you have to be trusted to do the right thing.

Where are the horses now? 

Machines and what they replace are a great analogy for what is going wrong in our society on so many levels.

A hundred years ago, you replaced a horse with an efficient new machine. Today, you replace a human being: one that thinks, feels, creates, and often, has a family. It’s up to the privileged to understand that privilege comes with the responsibility of upholding a trust. That trust is about making things better for as many people as we are able. Privilege involves thinking about the future and constant improvement. This is not simply through the constant improvement of machines. It’s through the constant improvement of society and the social policies that make society just.

The next innovator may be living in the deep end of deprivation 

We don’t only need to retrofit factories for an age of automation. We need to retrofit society. We need to think deeply about how many people are falling into poverty. We need to understand that the next Einstein or Da Vinci may not be sitting amongst the one per cent or even the middle class. He or she may be one of the people who dream and dream from the deep end of deprivation within a society that at the moment is not quite ready for the new prime time.

How much does the loss of one potential Einstein/Da Vinci cost society?

We have to ask ourselves as we watch people lose jobs, policy makers tell us that we are in a ‘new reality’, and robots begin to do things like learn what they couldn’t do before, well, we have to ask ourselves to learn how to do things better than we did before. If the robots are learning to dream of electric sheep then we better learn how to make our own dreams come true.

Paradigms aren’t only about the implementation of technology: paradigms are about implementing the designs that make our world a better place for men, women and children because of what the efficiencies of technology have enabled us to do for one another.

We have spent a lot of our creative energies marketing machines. Today, it’s time to believe in the human being. By glorifying the machines, we’ve forgotten that they were designed to serve us.

We have to do things better by creating more value, by challenging our social policy, and by making sure that if the middle class is shrinking and has shrunk, we are going to do things better. (In Toronto, where I live, 66 per cent of neighbourhoods were middle income in 1970. That number has shrunk to 29 per cent.)

We need to create strategies that will help people grow and think differently so that they are ready for the challenges of the future. Because the future is here.

Right now.

For many people today, especially modern day economists, a guaranteed, basic income is believed necessary to address the rapidly changing job market due to the automation and ‘robotization’ of labour intensive jobs.

For others a basic income is required to provide much needed reform of patronizing and often small-minded, or even mean-spirited welfare programs.

But they both are wrong – at least for what the primary reason a minimum income should be about.

Yes, a basic income could help address the growing concerns about both unemployment and welfare issues. A basic income could easily provide much needed succor to employees at time when jobs are increasingly in transition and vulnerable to automation. A basic income could also help eliminate the stigma of welfare and empower recipients to order their lives as they see fit, rather than as bean counters demand.

However, the fundamental purpose of a basic income is really about furthering freedom of the person over their own lives. The freedom to manage the limited time one has in this life in order to serve our own needs first, over those of employers and welfare bean counters. That is, if the government of the day is sincere about promoting and furthering the freedom of its citizens.

A basic income is about:

• The freedom from the spectre of destitution and homelessness that haunts our precarious workforce and the subsistence wages that unskilled labour is forced to accept because jobs can be shipped offshore at a moment’s notice.
• The freedom to leave the workforce in order to deal with family concerns as they arise, or to be with infirm and dying friends and family, or to take time for personal rest and recovery.
• The freedom to volunteer one’s skills and abilities to local non-profit agencies, amateur sports and community projects, thereby, enriching one’s community as well as one’s self.
• The freedom to pursue higher education and training goals, or to explore a different career. The arts community would explode with creativity once its practitioners were freed to perfect their vocations.

But make no mistake, a guaranteed basic income is the next evolutionary step in personal freedom — and jobs automation and welfare reform are simply providing greater impetus for the concept. Yet it is the freedom of individuals to order their lives as they see fit, rather than as employers or bean counting bureaucrats demand, that is the cornerstone of a guaranteed basic income.