Although he counts himself lucky not to have experienced poverty firsthand, the Green Party leader of Prince Edward Island, Peter Bevan-Baker, has many friends who haven’t been as fortunate.

When he rose in the P.E.I. Legislature last week and got all-party support for a Basic Income project to be set up on the island, he may have had them in mind when he introduced his motion. The Legislature agreed unanimously to have the province work with the federal government in the hope of running a Basic Income pilot on the island.

Bevan-Baker’s motion had its origins in the island’s May 2015 election. At an all-party leaders’ debate, it was the Green Party leader then, too, who brought up the issue, given it is prominently featured in all Green Party platforms across Canada. What he didn’t expect during that debate was to hear widespread openness toward the idea.

“I discovered, to my delight, that they all thought Basic Income was at least worthwhile exploring. It was a pleasant surprise, this unanimity.”

Bevan-Baker brought it up at least on “a dozen occasions” in the Legislature when opportunities arose. “There were all sorts of possibilities to do so, since Basic Income has the potential to make an impact across all departments,” says the Green Party leader.

He says if a Basic Income were to go into effect, it would have far-reaching ramifications. The obvious one is the virtual elimination of poverty.

“It’s the right thing to do from that standpoint.”

But there are far greater effects it may have to create a thriving society, he notes.

“It would remove the tremendous stress that people feel. It would provide people with enough income to meet their basic needs. It would help with the great mental stresses that people endure.”

Bevan-Baker says there are tremendous collective benefits, and that it’s important to go beyond considering only the economic when measuring. Everything from reduced health care costs, fewer law and order issues, increased civic participation, and better educational attainment are but a few areas of life that should be measured under a Basic Income to see if these improve.

“I believe a pilot project will show that Basic Income is going to improve the collective well-being of our society.

Now, the ball is in the federal government’s court. They would have to work out a partnership with the maritime province in order to make it happen. So far, there’s been no word whether or not federal involvement might happen.

In Ontario, which is embarking on its own Basic Income pilot, Ontario’s Minister Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, Chris Ballard, told Leaders and Legacies that Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development for Canada, “is certainly interested in the pilot, as are my provincial colleagues across Canada.”

When it comes to P.E.I., Bevan-Baker says he met with Family and Human Services Minister Tina Mundy personally many times and he knows she has had discussions with her federal counterparts.

The Green Party leader says this is “an enormous opportunity for the government” for an issue that has widespread momentum across Canada.

“There’s a compelling case for involvement. We don’t even need to use the whole island. We could use smaller pockets, different communities with a rural-urban mix and…it would be a drop in the bucket in federal terms.”

Bevan-Baker says islanders love to refer back to that historically-important week in 1864, when the so-called Charlottetown Conference marked the beginning of discussions to create a united Canada. To this day, P.E.I. is considered the ‘birthplace’ of Canada. They like to draw all sorts of parallels, he says, when there’s a chance for the small province to do something grand.

“But that parallel is well drawn here. It would be lovely symmetry if we were the place to give birth to a Basic Income. We’re less than half of one percent of the national population. We are our own jurisdiction. You can do a really solid pilot project here.”

Bevan-Baker came to Canada at age 23, having grown up in a middle class family from the highlands of Scotland. They didn’t have a lot of material possessions, and he points out that he had “a real sense of the value of things growing up,” which helped to shape him.

Politically, it is that sense of what matters in people’s lives which may have served Bevan-Baker well here — especially if his role in kick-starting a Basic Income project for P.E.I. soon bears fruit.

Chris Ballard, the Minister of Housing and Minister Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy for Ontario, says he is hopeful the province’s Basic Income pilot will “put to rest” any doubts people have about how positive a minimum income strategy could be.

Ballard, who is overseeing the Basic Income pilot project initiated by Canada’s largest province, says some of the key things they want to look at from studying the pilot will be Basic Income’s impact on community health, individuals’ health, education, general quality of life, and how the policy might stimulate “attachment to the labour force.”

“How might this help people get back to work? This may be a phenomenal aspect (of Basic Income) where people feel they have a base to be able to get back to work,” Ballard says.

He notes the goal is all about inclusion, trying to ensure there are as many Ontarians actively involved as possible in participating in community life.

“We want to raise people up. We can’t afford to leave anybody behind. We’re actually leaving capabilities behind (by allowing poverty) and so I want to see how transformative a Basic Income can be to a community and to individuals,” he says.

Ballard says there’s “a lot of anxiety in the middle class these days,” given how much employment has changed.

Pointing out that he, too, comes from a blue collar background, he says he understands their anxiousness.

“Everybody is very sensitive with the changing nature of work. It’s not the same world, where you work in the same place for 30 years. We worked so hard as a society to get out of poverty, and then suddenly we’re fearful we might slide back in. Basic Income might provide a fantastic safety net,” he says, to help reduce anxiety.

Ballard says many advocates for Basic Income have heard of the Dauphin, Manitoba experiment, where a program called Mincome helped establish a reliable minimum income for about a third of the people who lived there. Although there were a number of positive outcomes from the data that researcher Dr. Evelyn Forget uncovered many years later, including reduced crime and hospital visits, the pilot was shut down early.

“It wasn’t complete, so it would be wonderful to look at Ontario’s pilot at the end – or even during – and say ‘look it’s working’ or, once and for all, say ‘it’s not working.’ My heart tells me this is a fantastic solution” to dramatically reduce poverty, the minister says.

Recommendations

Retired Senator Hugh Segal recently delivered his requested report to the Ontario government, where he made recommendations about the Basic Income pilot. Segal recommends a monthly payment of at least $1,320 for a single person which is about 75 percent of the province’s poverty line. For those with disabilities, he suggests a top-up of $500 more a month. The pilot is expected to be initiated in April of next year.

The government is consulting widely now, from people with lived experience in poverty, to indigenous communities, business owners, average Ontarians, and experts. Ballard says it’s important that they figure out how to measure success in advance.

The minister says the pilot will also help inform the government about the “impact on local economies” that a Basic Income might have.

“Intuitively, I would think more people working will have more spending money,” he says, and of course it would put more money in the hands of people living in poverty.

Federal Interest

When asked about federal interest in the pilot Ontario is conducting, Ballard said the federal minister is “keen” to see how Ontario will structure their pilot.

Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development for Canada and an economist, “is certainly interested in the pilot, as are my provincial colleagues across Canada,” Ballard says.

“Ontario is leading the way here,” so there is a great deal of interest. He says he will be talking with Duclos regularly and sharing information.

Ballard points out that none other than Elon Musk, founder of Tesla Motors, was musing about the nature of work and pointing out earlier this month that a Basic Income was probably inevitable in the face of greater levels of automation.

“He and others understand the underlying anxiety that people rightly have about the nature of work,” Ballard says.

“And since we’re all well served with an inclusive society…Basic Income might just help all of us feel a lot more comfortable.”

There are “two sources of benefit” inherent in a Basic Income Guarantee, according to the executive director of the famous Mincome project in Winnipeg and Dauphin, Manitoba.

Ron Hikel, who served as executive director of Mincome from 1972 to 1977, says the first source of behavioural influence is the simple no-strings-attached receipt of the money itself. The second is “the psychological certainty of regularly having enough to live on.”

Hikel was speaking to Basic Income advocates at a meeting in Peterborough recently when he made the remarks. He says the psychological security of having money from month to month could “significantly reduce both individual and family anxiety.”

(In the current welfare system, recipients must submit to a high degree of invasive questioning, fill out copious amounts of paper work, and then face entrenched stigma – all for a much smaller amount of money that falls well below that of the poverty line.)

“There’s no doubt a properly designed and administered Basic Income could influence people’s lives for the better,” says Hikel.

“We’ve seen a significant increase in mental health challenges and I’m convinced that the certainty of income could lead to better physical and mental health,” Hikel explains.

The former Mincome executive director notes that of all the social determinants of health – those factors that shape the health of Canadians through the living conditions they experience – income is the most important enabler on this list.

Hikel points out that, at the level of the total population, those who have higher incomes are healthier, while those who are the most unwell in society have lesser ability to pay for health care. “And that’s why a general health system operating on exclusively private market terms is neither fair nor viable.”

Ontario’s new pilot on Basic Income

Retired Conservative Senator Hugh Segal’s report on a minimum income for Ontario was released recently, which will see Canada’s largest province set up a multi-year pilot to measure its effectiveness beginning in April, 2017.

In the report to Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government, Segal recommends a monthly payment of at least $1,320 for a single person which is about 75 percent of the province’s poverty line. For those with disabilities, Segal suggests a top-up of $500 more a month.

Hikel says that he would expect to see that the present rate of increase in health care system cost slowing after the introduction of a Basic Income, just as demand for care in Dauphin declined, according to research by economist Dr. Evelyn Forget. He says he would expect better population health in Ontario, too, after a basic income was in place in the province.

Hikel notes that in Dauphin — where Mincome helped establish a reliable income for about a third of the people – data indicated crime also went down during the experiment, including domestic incidences.

He says the big challenge for Ontario will be to get the design of the pilot right, with special emphasis on a top-notch IT system to calculate and deliver regular payments on time and in the right amounts for each family.

As Ontario gets set to introduce a Basic Income pilot in April of next year, Ayesha Valliani has been a part of a multi-faith approach call to action in support of the policy.

Last month in Toronto, Valliani served on the organizing committee for a Basic Income symposium, which was hosted in collaboration with the Christian-Jewish Dialogue, with very strong interfaith support from across the city.

Organizational partners of the event were the Christian Jewish Dialogue of Toronto, University of St. Michael���s College, and Massey College, with funding from essentially every faith community, says Valliani.

Valliani first heard about Basic Income policy when she was a junior fellow at Massey College. Master of Massey College, the Honourable Hugh Segal, is one of the key voices in the Basic Income movement in Canada. Valliani soon learned about the social policy through Segal’s advocacy.

The intention for the multi-faith dialogue was not to debate the pros and cons of Basic Income for Ontario, Valliani says. Those who participated were already sold on the idea. This included people from the business sector, all three levels of government, anti-poverty advocates, researchers, and representatives from the innovative finance sector.

“There really was an inter-faith call to action,” that day, says Valliani, who notes the symposium was led by Barbara Borak, who serves as executive director of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue.

“This event really brought together faith leaders to speak out about poverty and Basic Income. Faith leaders have an important role to play in advocating for their constituencies but also for these important social issues,” says Valliani.

The multi-faith group’s goal, she says, is to maintain the momentum behind a Basic Income as the pilot begins and carries on over the next several years.

“We’ll be sharing information and listening to others on what it means with the communities on the ground. Our role will be to help translate the community level dialogue back up to government.”

Valliani says there hasn’t been a lot of input from faith communities and from those who have lived experience with poverty, including indigenous communities.

“Hearing from people with lived experience with poverty has to be part of the goal. They have a stake in it, so any good policy has to be informed by those with lived experience,” she says.

During the multi-faith symposium on Basic Income last month, she says the people who actually had lived experience with poverty “spoke eloquently” about what it was like.

“From the day to day struggles, to navigating the various bureaucratic structures…everyone put their phones away and actually listened to them.”

Valliani says she gets the sense that more and more people are realizing that building a strong society is not just attempting to create jobs and then hoping “people will pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make a living.”

“It’s a whole interconnected series of things that will allow someone to live with dignity — or not.”

Segal, who recently delivered his recommendations to the Ontario government about Basic Income, recommends a minimum income of at least $1,320 for a single person. This would bring them up to about 75 percent of the province’s poverty line. For those with disabilities, Segal suggests a top-up of another $500 a month.

“I think most people realize that individuals find personal satisfaction and a sense of self worth when they work,” she says, which is why she is not worried about any possible work disincentives with a Basic Income.

“But in order to do work and be engaged in your community you need a sense of security, even though it’s not a life of luxury,” Valliani says. “The structure of the state impacts how people live.”

She recalls a conversation she had recently with a citizenship judge about dying with dignity.

“He wanted to know why we care so much about dying with dignity, but not so much about living with dignity.”

The work of the multi-faith Basic Income initiative is slated to continue. Valliani says the diverse group of ideologically committed people hopes to develop a set of values and principles that will carry the project forward.

With Canada’s 150^th birthday year less than two months away, Hugh Segal is calling for the federal government to get involved in Ontario’s pilot project on Basic Income as a nation-building opportunity.

Retired Conservative Senator Hugh Segal’s long awaited report on a guaranteed annual income was released last week, which will see Canada’s largest province set up a multi-year pilot to measure its effectiveness.

In the report to Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government, Segal recommends a monthly payment of at least $1,320 for a single person which is about 75 percent of the province’s poverty line. For those with disabilities, Segal suggests a top-up of at least $500 a month.

The retired senator notes that while the federal government’s involvement is “not specifically within the remit of an Ontario pilot, it is nevertheless recommended that the federal government consider partnering with any willing province on any Basic Income pilots now being considered or contemplated.”

Segal writes that “a government in Ottawa that is committed to poverty reduction could see a meaningful nation-building opportunity in moving forward with a Basic Income project for the country as a whole.”

The pilot does indeed have worldwide ramifications, given Ontario’s sheer size, both in area and in population. The province is more than one million square kilometres — an area larger than France and Spain combined and it is the largest province by population in Canada, with more than 13.5 million people. This single province generates 37 percent of the national GDP of Canada.

Segal’s recommendation to the government would include strong work incentives built into the Basic Income pilot’s design. He told CBC’s Carol Off that in his vision for the program, “people would be able to go out and earn as much as they like and the normal tax rates of 20 percent or 30 percent would apply.”

“Once they reach an amount where they’re earning as much every month as they’re getting from the actual basic grant, then they would be taxed like the rest of us who earn enough to live without any assistance,” he tells Off.

To read Segal’s full report, click here.

Retired Conservative Senator Hugh Segal’s long awaited report on Ontario’s Basic Income pilot has been released, where he emphasizes the need to understand the full costs of poverty before fairly evaluating the new pilot.

Segal recommends a monthly payment of at least $1,320 for a single person which is about 75 percent of the province’s poverty line. For those with disabilities, Segal suggests a top-up of at least $500 a month.

The retired senator says any pilot project must understand poverty’s costs, not only in the present welfare and disability payments, “but also in terms of added pressures on our health system, and the Ontario economy as a whole, through its impacts on economic productivity and existing government revenues.”

He writes that measurable outcomes (from the pilot) should include the number of primary care visits (for psycho-social, mental and physical health), the number of emergency department visits, and prescription drug use.

Careful examination of participants’ life and career choices should also be made over the duration of the pilot by participants, “such as training, family formation, fertility decisions, living arrangements, parenting time.”

Other notes of interest for researchers should include education outcomes for participants and their children, and the nature and number of courses taken by adults, he says.

Work behaviour, job search and employment status

Segal says the public’s desire to understand how a basic income might affect work behaviours makes this area important to track, too.

According to Segal’s paper, measurable outcomes with regard to work behaviours should include:

• the number of hours of paid work
• the number of jobs held
• the income earned on the labour market
• the intensity and length of job search activities.

“The impact of a Basic Income on labour market participation remains one of the main concerns of the Canadian population,” he says, pointing to an August 2016 Angus Reid Institute poll, showing 63 percent of the country’s population believes that a Basic Income would discourage people from working.

Segal notes the introduction of a Basic Income pilot for individuals currently receiving Ontario Works would provide additional incentives to join the workforce, by allowing them to keep a substantial part of their earned income in addition to their Basic Income.

“…a careful evaluation of the impact of a Basic Income on people’s decisions regarding work, such as whether to work or not, their weekly hours worked, their job search activities, and the number of jobs they hold, is critical.”

The retired senator says the evaluation of the pilot should seriously explore how labour market behaviours vary across demographic groups, according to the amount in benefits received, and the rate at which they are taxed back, as income earned in the labour market increases.

— More analysis of the Segal report on Basic Income to come.

The Kingston Action Group for a Basic Income Guarantee is living up to its name — taking action in the form of a national letter writing campaign directed at the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Jean-Yves Duclos.

The hope is that a large number of people will simply copy and paste this letter, adding their own name, address, and signature, and send it off to the Minister. (No stamp is necessary when snail-mailing a letter to a member of parliament.) The letter should create additional pressure for the federal government to consider the merits of a Basic Income policy.

The letter begins by acknowledging the Ministry’s work so far, and then quickly pivots to calling for support for a Basic Income.

“I write to applaud your Ministry’s overarching goal to increase economic and social security for all Canadians, especially those among us who are most vulnerable. I am persuaded by the evidence that the most effective policy for realizing this goal will be a Basic Income Guarantee. I am writing to urge you to do all you can to make this happen.”

The Kingston group was careful to situate the Basic Income discussion within a larger context of social supports for all Canadians.

“In tandem with a broad social support system, including affordable housing, childcare, dental care, pharmacare, and programs that assist those with particular needs and vulnerabilities, a progressive basic income would make a crucial difference in the lives of those living in poverty.”

Later in the letter, the Kingston group acknowledges the federal government’s openness to provincial work in this policy area.

“I am pleased that your government has offered to support the governments of Ontario and Quebec with their proposed pilots for a guaranteed annual income. I trust that this will be the beginning of a federal-provincial collaboration that will see a basic income guarantee in place across the country. It is surely not an exaggeration to call this the most important policy initiative since the introduction of Medicare in the 1960s.”

Download the PDF of the letter in its entirety from the Kingston Action Group here.

A basic income (also known as a guaranteed annual income) would ensure no one ever drops below the poverty line. It ensures everyone an income sufficient to meet basic needs and live with dignity, regardless of work status.

Articles appeared on Benns’ independent, non-partisan news site, Leaders and Legacies, over a two-year period. After gathering all of the articles and question and answer sessions together, Benns says he realized he had more than 70,000 words and a 290-page book to share – Basic Income: How a Canadian Movement Could Change the World. The book is available exclusively through Amazon.

Featuring scores of interviews and articles with prominent Canadians, including federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May, Senator Art Eggleton, and retired Senators Hugh Segal and Michael Meighen, there are also interviews with MPs Scott Brison and Dan Blaikie, as well as big city mayors like Calgary’s Naheed Nenshi and Edmonton’s Don Iveson. Benns also interviewed researchers, academics, educators, and medical doctors, along with average Canadians — to get them to imagine what their lives would be like under a basic income guarantee.

“This is one of the most talked-about and compelling social policy initiatives being considered by Canadian politicians now,” says Benns, who also does communication work for the Basic Income Canada Network (BICN).

“Basic income is part of a vital conversation we need to have about inequality in Canada.”

He points out Ontario is about to announce an ambitious pilot project to test basic income policy over a multi-year period, with the federal government watching closely. Quebec is considering its own initiative, as is Prince Edward Island.

“If Canada, as a wealthy G7 nation, decides to kick-start a basic income program, this could have profoundly positive ramifications for inequality around the world.”

To purchase Basic Income: How a Canadian Movement Could Change the World, click here.

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.

Four panelists met in the southwestern Ontario city of Guelph Wednesday night to debate the merits of a basic income guarantee. When the dust settled, there may have been more common ground than first imagined.

The central question of the evening was ‘Can a Basic Income Guarantee Eliminate Poverty?’ Sheila Regehr, chair of the Basic Income Canada Network, kicked off the evening with a 20-minute introduction about basic income. She was then in conversation with Peter Clutterbuck, from the Social Planning Network of Ontario, Noah Zon, Director of Policy and Research, Maytree, and Dr. Nicola Mercer, Medical Officer of Health, Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health.

Regehr promoted and defended basic income on many levels, pointing out that Canada already has two forms of basic income policy in place – Old Age Security (OAS) and the Canada Child Tax Benefit. She pointed out that income guarantees for seniors and children worked in tandem with good public services to provide a better quality of life.

“We know seniors are better off. We know children and parents are better off. We have generations of evidence here,” she said.

The BICN chair also pointed out that increasing rates of technological change and automation are creating a new reality and challenge for human labour, with employment much more insecure. She says a basic income would promote a fairer distribution of work, wealth, income and better civic participation.

Clutterbuck offered the most qualified support of the evening, pointing out that poverty wasn’t only about income, although that was one aspect. It is also about poverty of exclusion from the community, he said, and lack of employment chances.

“The idea of de-linking labour from income security is a bit troubling to me and I think…it undermines community advocacy movements,” Clutterbuck says.

Clutterbuck emphasized that we “can’t just pretend paid labour is not important.”

He also questioned why our society allows the deterioration of good jobs to occur, pointing out that good paying and meaningful work can help people “get far beyond the poverty line.”

“But workers need more rewarding jobs, with opportunity planning,” he said.

Clutterbuck did say that a “basic income should be part of a balanced discussion, and then it could have a role.”

“Income security should be situated within a wider discourse with employment opportunities.”

Clutterbuck hopes the forthcoming pilot administered by the Ontario government could demonstrate how a basic income could work in tandem with other supports. In this way, the income security and community supports become interdependent, able to withstand future political scrutiny, he says.

Dr. Nicola Mercer, Medical Officer of Health, offered her clear support for a basic income, stating that poverty is “making people ill.”

Citing decades of research as far back as the Whitehall study, which examined mortality rates over 10 years among male British Civil Servants aged 20-64, Mercer says it’s clear that income security would tremendously help with population health.

She pointed out that in her city of Guelph, one neighbourhood is challenged with a 30 percent poverty rate for children. This same neighbourhood “has no grocery store, no library, and no daycare.”

“It is really an impediment,” she says, because if families don’t have the income to have a car to access the services they need it creates layers of problems.

“Everything is compounded. An unequal distribution of wealth makes for an unequal distribution of health,” Mercer says.

Noah Zon, for Maytree, says not all basic income policies are created equal, something that all panelists agreed on.

“The wrong kind of basic income could make people worse off,” if it corresponded to an erosion of public services.

In pointing out the efficacy of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, Zon says that “we know people use money remarkably well” to help their families, agreeing that this form of a basic income – including the OAS for seniors – have been successes.

The Maytree researcher says that the cost of bring up all families in Canada over the poverty line with a basic income could be $300 billion dollars though, and that’s after factoring in the elimination of welfare systems. (However, Zon seemed to be referring to a demogrant model here, rather than the more widely accepted and more affordable negative income tax model, in which some monies are clawed back as people work.)

“I’d rather focus on the gaps in our existing benefits though…rather than choose a modest version of a basic income just because it might be more affordable,” he said.

Zon cited the Alaska Permanent Fund which gives about $2,000 to each resident per year, a dividend from oil development, as an example of a modest basic income that would be ineffective.

Shared values, health, and community

Regehr emphasized that the basic income guarantee would have to be “designed well, based on the values we share.”

“A basic income also has the potential to have positive community-wide effects,” as has been shown in India, Regehr says.

From a mental health angle, Regehr says “we can make the choice to throw money at mental health now, or we can first take a huge mental health strain off of people first with a basic income.”

Better employment

Clutterbuck cited the example of the activist federal governments of the early 1970s that helped create meaningful work opportunities for people. As a young history teacher who graduated into a large glut of teachers in 1971, he says that new and different opportunities from government allowed the flourishing of careers, like his, in the non-profit sectors. This helped build communities and contributed to better social cohesion.

Pointing out there are now robots that spend time with people who have Alzheimer’s, he wonders “why we’re not paying people to be with people?”

“This is an example of making better employment decisions.”

Food Security

Mercer points out that research shows that women who have food security issues tend to be more overweight than those who do not. As well, they often raise daughters with mental health issues.

“Moving people out of poverty requires more than a basic income,” but a basic income is a great start, she says.

Out of Poverty

Zon says recent changes to the Canada Child Tax Benefit by the federal Liberals have moved 397,000 people out of poverty this year.

“And that’s a strong case for a basic income,” he adds.