Ontario MPP, France Gélinas, says a well-designed basic income policy could help women stay home if they want to take care of their aging parents.

Gélinas, an MPP with Ontario’s New Democratic Party (NDP) and a health critic for her party, says women in the 50-65 age bracket often find themselves in the difficult position of placing their mother or father in a long term care home.

“Many women – and let’s be honest, it’s mostly women who would choose this – would love to stay home and take care of their moms and dads,” says Gélinas.

“If they had a basic income it would be possible,” she says, and without any stigma attached to such a decision.

Now, most women can’t afford to lose their jobs in order to do this, she says, and so the business of long term care flourishes.

However, the MPP says it takes $90,000 a year to keep someone in a long-term care bed in Ontario. If someone were to receive even a $20,000 annual basic income it would still be “way cheaper.”

“Will there be a disincentive to work? Well, let’s not kid ourselves. It’s a ton of ‘work’ to keep your mom or dad at home – it’s demanding and tough but many would choose to do it,” she says.

She says she knows “how hard it is for people to place their parents in a long term care home. If you give them another option, they will usually take it.”

The MPP says Canadians hear with too much regularity about abuse that happens in long term care homes. A basic income would help adult children take care of elderly moms and dads for longer.

This would be “phenomenal for health outcomes for the elderly” and women, as the dominant caregivers, “would not be condemned to live in poverty,” she says.

More Money is a Healthy Choice

Gélinas says the body of evidence is solid that for every $1,000 dollars a family gets there is measurable improvement in their health.

A single man getting around $700 per month (the approximate rate of social assistance in Ontario) is “pretty bad,” says Gélinas.

At $1,320 per month – the amount recommended by special government adviser Hugh Segal for a basic income program – “this person will automatically be healthier,” she adds.

“Income has a direct impact.”

Where it becomes worrisome with basic income, says Gélinas, is for someone on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Even with the additional $500 per month that Segal is recommending, she notes there are often many expenses that total more than this for people with disabilities.

For instance, someone in a wheelchair living in rural northeastern Ontario – where Gélinas’ riding is located – automatically means additional expenses. Not only would this person need a larger apartment so they can get around with their wheelchair, she says, but there is also a lack of some medical services in the area. Right now, ODSP will cover the full cost of travel to a larger centre for specialist appointments, including hotels and transportation.

Gélinas points out that like anything with wheels, even wheelchairs give out and need to be replaced, too. “So that extra money per month (from the recommended basic income) won’t be enough” unless there are other accommodations, she says.

As well, she says if the government is looking for cost savings associated with shuttering ODSP offices and workers, she doesn’t think this is advisable.

“I think it would be short-sighted. The ODSP workers, they help a lot and so many people depend on them” for guidance in their day-to-day living.

Gélinas says the NDP will be waiting to see what the Ontario government comes up with more specifically on basic income before endorsing just any version of it.

Progressive Conservative MPP, Julia Munro, says the very nature of work is changing so rapidly that societies are having difficulty figuring out how to respond.

Munro, who is the PC critic for the government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy, says the “nature of work has changed so much.”

“Everything has always been pinned on our work – our employment. It’s the way we have defined ourselves for so long,” she says.

She suggests the rise in at least some of the mental health problems that have been occurring is because of a lack of occupational identity.

“These foundational concepts are in question now,” says Munro.

While acknowledging the starkly different employment landscape, the PC critic says it’s too early to decide definitively if the creation of a basic income guarantee is the way to go.

“It’s possible that a basic income could help. But my view is that we need to look at it in tandem with things like better matching education with available good jobs.”

Munro gives the Ontario government credit for their consultation process on basic income, happening now across the province. She says it has been a “helpful way” for people to get an idea of what others are thinking. Once the government has heard from Ontarians, the plan is to announce more details about the province’s basic income pilot in April.

“Basic income is thought provoking. It’s something to keep in mind, given all the societal changes,” she says.

Munro had already attended one consultation session and was headed to another one in London on Tuesday.

She says one common theme she has noticed is that “younger people don’t have the same feeling towards a job as people have had in past generations.”

“It’s a common thread. They know they won’t be in the same job forever,” as members of past generations were.

Munro says a recent poll by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reveals that when they asked their members if they supported pursuing a minimum income guarantee, 71 percent said no.

She shares this to illustrate that it’s important to “look at what everyone’s saying” before committing to one direction.

The PC MPP believes the government has a huge undertaking in front of them in simply figuring out where to locate the pilots. Retired Conservative Senator, Hugh Segal, who wrote a report on basic income to offer guidance to the government, suggests a saturation site in southern Ontario, one in northern Ontario, and one in an indigenous community.

She says figuring out which specific communities will be difficult, as will be figuring out how to conduct a control group.

As for party support for basic income, Munro says the PCs are “interested and open to hear about what comes out of the consultation process” and will be more prepared to comment in the spring, after the government releases more details.

Munro says two of the most important questions for governments to answer is ‘what are the jobs of the future and how will they be filled,’ as well as ‘are our students getting what they need to move in that direction?’

The MPP represents the riding of York-Simcoe where there is a mix of runaway construction and affluence, along with pockets of poverty, including a youth shelter.

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.

When he was a young man, just leaving high school, Jason Hartwick always pictured himself in front of a classroom. He saw himself as a high school teacher, helping to inspire young people and to guide them along their lives’ paths.

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.

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.

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.

A basic income guarantee is not a magic bullet for all forms of economic deprivation in our society, according to a York University professor – but it’s absolutely necessary for the most severe instances of poverty.

Dr. Dennis Raphael, a professor of Health Policy and Management at York University in Toronto, says the people in poverty within the bottom 10-15 percent “suffer profoundly.”

“A basic income is a chance to remove the most egregious forms of poverty,” he says.

Raphael has written over 300 scientific publications that focus on the health effects of income inequality and poverty, the quality of life of communities and individuals, and the impact of government decisions on Canadians’ health and well-being. He is editor of the ‘Social Determinants of Health: Canadian Perspectives’ (now in 3rd edition).

The professor says as much as a basic income policy is needed in Canada, it cannot hope to do everything that is needed to address all poverty and health related challenges.

“For me to be really happy, there would also have to be housing supports, childcare, a national pharmacare program, in addition to a better balance between labour and the corporate sector,” says Raphael.

According to Poverty Free Ontario, in the last 35 years, except for a short period in the mid- 1980s to 1991, the poverty rate in Ontario has hovered between 9 percent to just over 12 percent, using the Ontario Government’s official poverty measure (Low Income Measure – After Tax) and the latest Statistics Canada low income figures.

“Whether in good or bad economic times, since the recession of 1992, Ontario has struggled to stay below a double-digit poverty rate of 10 percent or higher. This tells us that reducing the poverty rate to 4 percent or lower will require structural approaches that address the basic material living conditions of low income Ontarians,” according to the fact sheet.

“Poor people in Canada are really, really poor,” says Raphael. “And Canada has among the highest incidents of low income workers – 27 percent of workers are low paid.”

Over time, the poverty gap has narrowed for children and seniors, who are recipients of the Child Tax Benefit and Old Age Security, respectively. This fact has often bolstered basic income advocates’ claims that a guaranteed minimum income could alleviate poverty for working age adults, too.

Since there are so many poor working opportunities, he says that a basic income can’t possibly be a cure-all, when “insecurity and rotten work benefits” are still prevalent.

“There has been a relentless weakening of peoples’ incomes,” over the years, says the professor, and it’s why he chooses to emphasize the need for a full spectrum of changes. This includes better quality employment opportunities with benefits to create stronger income security for all Canadians.

A recent United Way and McMaster University study shows that fewer than half of workers in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton are in permanent, full-time jobs. Instead, about 52 per cent of workers are in temporary, contract, or part-time positions.

“A basic income is an absolute necessity, but it is only one small part. If the basic income could eliminate food banks, and if it can be in tandem with child care and Pharmacare, then there’s no doubt this would be a profound achievement,” says Raphael.

But by addressing a re-balancing of power between business and labour, such as the examples provided by Scandinavian and continental European countries, much more progress could be made, he points out.

“There are basic needs, and then there are the needs for a flourishing society.”