Benns: How did you come to be involved in this issue? What makes you advocate for it?  

Brun: Basic Income came to my attention through the recent Swiss referendum, to be held in 2016. As well, a number of technologists and entrepreneurs have begun to speak about basic income as a way to support entrepreneurship. This led me to meet with experts on the subject, such as Jurgen De Wispelare of McGill University.

Since my introduction, I have worked with the Canada Basic Income Network and we also started a citizen initiative for Québec, titled Revenu de base Québec. We hope to put the issue on the map as a solution to social justice, entrepreneurship and government simplification.

Benns: What about a basic income guarantee makes it a social justice issue?

Brun: Justice is a complex subject, but the main path towards a just society is one in which individuals are empowered and free. Basic Income can help provide independence to people, allowing them to pursue their dreams, reduce their financial constraints and fight for justice. Without freedom, there cannot be justice and without a floor under each person’s feet, there cannot be freedom.

Benns: The most common concern is that by implementing a basic income guarantee that too many of us would choose not to work. Why do you believe this won’t be the case?

Brun: Certain jobs will disappear or the salaries will be forced to increase to compensate for poor working conditions. Low wage jobs such as the service industry will likely suffer, but this will force companies to innovate and increase the value of the service they offer. With increased labour costs due to their bargaining power, automation will be accelerated, further freeing us to pursue economic activity that reflects the full potential of the human mind.

Ultimately, we all want fulfilling work with reasonable working hours. A basic income will free people to pursue work and start companies that will in turn push innovation and society forward. A basic income should be based on the prosperity of a society, much like a dividend. As we increase the economic prosperity and efficiency of our society, the returns on that success should be distributed to the people who form the society – creating a feedback loop that will propel us forward and align our interests.

The revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe and the Americas freed millions of people from tyranny and bondage, this led to the longest period of growth and improvement in human history. To reboot the economy and continue to grow, we must engage in an emancipation of the same magnitude.

Benns: When you imagine Canadian life with this policy in place — say 10 years of the basic income guarantee — what does the country look like? How has it changed?

Brun: A form of basic income is possible within the next 15 years, if the stars align. However, our confederation and the power sharing between the provinces and the federal government will make the implementation particularly difficult. In all likelihood, a province or a number of provinces will need to offer a basic income before we see it at the national level – like Medicare.

Benns: From what perspective do you approach this issue? And, how did you come to be involved?

Endicott: I have always been interested in social justice and I believe wealth inequality and poverty are issues that can be addressed if people can be inspired act. I learned about the Kingston Action Group for a Basic Income Guarantee  when Toni Pickard did a guest lecture in a class I am taking as part of my Bachelor of Education at Queen’s University. I had heard of the idea before but Toni’s description of the group and the type of activism they were doing made me excited to get involved with them.

Benns: What about a basic income guarantee makes it a social justice issue?

Endicott: The United Nations declaration of human rights says that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living. In our current system this right is not possible for many people. A basic income would recognize this right and change the way we look at food and shelter,  they aren’t privileges that you have to work for but rights that everyone should have. One goal of many social justice movements is the eradication of poverty. One of the things that drew me to the idea of a BIG is is the fact that it has a real chance of eliminating poverty. Poverty intersects with so many other forms of oppression that by addressing poverty we would also be making our society more equitable in terms of race, gender, and many other areas of injustice.

Benns: In what way would this policy show there is real value in raising a family? 

Endicott: A basic income guarantee would partially be a recognition of the value of all the unpaid work that is done. The most obvious example of this is valuing the work of parents (often women) who stay home with their children. One of the things that I find so ridiculous about our economic system is that over the last 30 years as efficiency and productivity have steadily increased it has become impossible for most families to survive off of the full-time employment income of one adult. By providing an income while parents are not working the basic income guarantee shows that this type of work is valued. It should be noted however that a basic income guarantee would be an income floor and that things like parental leaves and employment insurance would still be needed to allow people to maintain their standard of living. Since a basic income guarantee is unconditional it would also benefit people other than parents such as artists, students, volunteers, and people caring for their elders who do valuable though unpaid work in our communities.

Benns: When you imagine Canadian life with this policy in place — say 10 or 20 years of the basic income guarantee — what does the country look like? How has it changed?

Endicott: When I imagine Canada after 10 years of basic income guarantee I see a place where the people are happier, healthier, and more engaged. Government spending required for  healthcare and the criminal justice system has been significantly reduced and the savings are being used to continue funding the basic income guarantee. I think there will be more small businesses and more entrepreneurs because people will have a solid safety net to fall back on. As jobs have started to disappear in manufacturing and other industries due to automation people have used their basic income to allow them to transition to other forms of employment. One way to see what a strong effect a basic income can have on poverty levels in our future is to look at the case of seniors and the huge effect of OAS/GIS on reducing poverty amongst seniors. More people will be able to study subjects that interest them rather than what they think they need to be the most employable. There is still a divide between rich and poor and most people are employed full time to pay for their desires but everyone has enough to cover their needs. This to me is the most important thing about BIG, everyone has the ability to live with dignity making our society as a whole stronger.

Following my complaint to Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner, Valerie Jepson, Toronto’s 64th mayor and (now) City councillor, Rob Ford, is set to offer a “sincere, specific and public apology” today. His apology is based on racial slurs he made in 2012.

“Nobody sticks up for people like I do, every f–ing k–e, n—–r, f—ing w–p, d–go, whatever the race.” He then described himself as “the most racist guy around.”

His action was found to be “below the standards expected of him and were contrary to the Code of Conduct” and that “considering the position he held at the time, his actions were egregious and wholly unbecoming of the Office of the Mayor.”

Amen to that.

Calling on him to apologize, Ms. Jepson, accepted my argument that his apology should be appropriate and worthy of the position he held. According to her, this would “allow Ford to take responsibility for this specific incident, it will signal that he understands and respects the Ontario Human Rights Code, and it gets the apology on the public record”.

I know many friends of mine and die-hard supporters of the former mayor will fail to understand the action I took and will continue to excuse his misdeeds. Friends of mine have worked on his campaigns since 2010, when he was seen as a credible candidate despite his public shortcomings. Still, many stood by him throughout his mayoralty until supporting him became impossible and foolish.

I know reasonable Torontonians are convinced my action is motivated for partisan purpose. Many will assume I am part of the Liberal establishment intent on helping to destroy the Ford dynasty. I am not.

Let me explain myself.

I am a paid member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. I am an active supporter of Christine Elliot for leader. I am a director of the Toronto Centre Progressive Conservative Association. I have written countless blogs and articles endorsing Sir John A. Macdonald (who has also proven to be controversial in retrospect), as that of our best prime minister ever. I am even trying to collect the necessary resources to construct and build a bus station in a small village in Ethiopia to for his humanitarian efforts to the East African country.

So my Conservative partisan credentials are as good as Ford’s. They run deep. My beliefs come from the political centre where the majority of Canadians reside. Ford’s brand is nether Conservative nor Liberal. It has always been a Tea Party-like movement that is more American than Canadian and unless he adjusts and reconstructs himself accordingly, we should all reject this.

The ideal Conservative is progressive, humble and respectful. It is someone who respects individual liberty and builds public institutions to protect and promote human rights. The ideal Conservative understands government exists primarily to protect the most vulnerable and that minority rights are as important as that of the majority.

David Crombie understood that in Toronto, as much as Bill Davis did in Ontario. Rob Ford does not.

Ford needs to understand words — and in particular, racial slurs — are powerful and hurtful to all Canadians. Whether one is black, brown or white is secondary as they destroy the fabric of our culture and citizenship. We should never allow him to use them no matter how privileged and powerful he is.

It is fortunate that he or his brothers can freely hand out money to the less fortunate or can afford to invite thousands of residents to his mother’s backyard for a BBQ. What he should never have the privilege of doing is to use historically derogatory words to describe anybody.

I take my civic responsibilities and rights seriously. I certainly do not need to take out my citizenship card from my heart pocket to celebrate my citizenship the way Jean Charest powerfully did in a 1997 federal election debate. By forcing Ford to account for his racism, I am embracing and fulfilling the promise of my citizenship. That is more powerful than waving the Canadian flag on July 1st.

I am excited that my complaint was given its due course by the integrity commissioner, not because I am rich or connected, but because I am a citizen. This is proof that the system works and is accessible.

From the Council chamber, I will watch, in person, as Toronto’s 64th mayor apologizes to us all tonight and takes responsibility for what he did and said as mayor. I will then fully expect him to have a higher standard for himself and the office he occupies onwards.

As the Integrity Commissioner warned, “Should Mr. Ford engage in similar conduct in the future, it may be necessary to consider more significant penalties.”

– Samuel Getachew is a frequent columnist for Leaders and Legacies and the Huffington Post.

In a visit to Brazil in 2002, American President, George W. Bush, asked then Brazilian President, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a strange question. “Do you have blacks, too?”

Anyone could have asked that very same question about Canada’s black population, after the CBC recently hosted two teams to debate this statement: “The political process is no longer the most effective way to enact real change.”

The debate hosted by CBC News’s Chief Correspondent Peter Mansbridge, had two teams of debaters – Andrew Coyne, Alison Loat, and Dave Meslin for the ‘yes’ side and Sheila Copps, Monte Solberg, and…Aisha Moodie-Mills for the no side.

Aisha who?

The network described the African-American as “an American progressive strategist, policy analyst, and social entrepreneur.”

American?

Was it really a smart move to have an American debate a Canadian issue? During the debate, it even became disheartening as she was the only person of colour on the stage and completely out of her depth among the debaters whose lives had been constructed around Canadian politics and history.

Do we not have credible Canadian black spokespersons who could have fulfilled that role much better? Do we really need an American to be the token black voice at an important function sponsored by a public institution that is as significant as the CBC?

As the American, Mills, used the words of Bill Clinton, referenced the American congress to argue a few points, and struggled to fit in among Canadians with obviously better insight of our politics, I could not help but feel her pain.

In reflection, I could not help but reflect on a conversation I once had with CBC’s Inside Politics host, Evan Solomon. He had just finished hosting a mayoral debate between Olivia Chow and John Tory at a downtown church when I approached him with a well-known Toronto community activist, Gwyn Chapman. We shared with him our concerns about the lack of diversity that we see on his show.

He instead reflected on a black guest he previously had on the show and how he was ultimately disappointed by his performance. Was that to be the barometer for all potential black guests to come in the future? What if the same criteria were held for white people?

After all, this is a show that talks about many issues that matter to black people in Canada — national security, politics, and more – so not having them represented on the show on a regular basis is as bizarre as the American appearing at a CBC debate to defend Canada’s political process and engagement.

At its best, CBC is an important public institution that serves us well each day. It should always aim to capture the reality of a diverse Canadian citizenship. When it does not, it begins to lose its relevance.

Its lasting legacy should always be how close it has brought us to our citizenship and to our 35 million neighbours all across Canada. There is a valid reason why it is publicly funded and why the now-defunct SUN TV station was not. The CBC is supposed to speak to all of us as Canadians.

So, in what is perhaps the most multicultural society in the world here in Canada – and especially in Toronto — do we really need an American to speak for Canada’s diversity?

Roderick Benns recently interviewed Luc Gosselin, a member of Basic Income Earth Network, and a member of France’s Mouvement français pour le revenu de base, about a basic income guarantee. 

Benns: How did you come to be involved in this issue?

Gosselin: It’s the last stage in a mental voyage that started with an aphorism I coined when a teenager: Il n’y a pas de salaire pour l’ennui, which translates as: No salary is high enough to pay for boredom.

A few years later, in one of Buckminster Fuller’s book, I came across this:

“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

My little aphorism and this great quotation intermingled and I developed the fantasy that if I’d been guaranteed an income that would be enough to live on, I’d happily pay 50% tax on all my earnings on top of that. I seldom shared that dream of mine, but it stayed in my mind for years and years.

And then, approximately fifteen years ago, I heard an interview with Philippe Van Parijs on Radio-Canada about the concept of basic income (which he calls: allocation universelle). That was exactly my dream! I had a sort of Big Bang moment! I bought one of his books, subscribed to BIEN’s (Basic Income Earth Network) newsletter and later to BICN’s (Basic Income Canadian Network) newsletter as well, read a few other books on the subject, and talked about it on all occasions given any pretext.

The current stretch of that journey started in February 2014. I was quitting a job and getting into what I call an “auto sabbatical leave of undefined length”. I thought it was time for me to put my time where my mouth was on that basic income business: I became a member of BIEN, attended its Conference and General Assembly in June, became a member of France’s Mouvement français pour le revenu de base,  created a Facebook Page, co-founded Revenu de base Québec, started networking with other groups in Québec and Canada.

It has become my main occupation.

Benns: What about a basic income guarantee makes it a social justice issue? 

Gosselin: First and foremost, it would, at least, alleviate poverty and, hopefully, end it all together. It’s just plain scandalous that we have not succeeded in doing that in our rich societies, that we keep treating the poor as “pariahs”. That’s why it’s urgent to implement basic income, but it’s not the only reason we should do it. Precariousness is spreading; it’s becoming an undesirable way of life for a lot of people. Inequality polarizes our societies and causes a deep feeling of intolerable injustice. Both precariousness and inequality will become very important problems, and dangerous ones to the point of fomenting rebellion, if we don’t take care. There are numerous and complicated causes for that situation; political and economic solutions come from right and left in a cacophony of dogmas that leaves one deaf. Basic income is a solution worth careful attention in order to solve, or at least reduce, those social injustices. I’ve come to think that discussing it is the most important thing that we need to do in our society, nowadays. And it’s a focus that would unite us.

Many social justice issues would have to be taken into account in our discussion of basic income: first, as mentioned, we would have to question seriously the way we treat the poor, and anybody who goes through hard times in life for that matter; the link between work and pay would have to be scrutinized; the value of a great lot of unpaid work would be recognized and enhanced; solidarity and community, equality and liberty would get new and deeper meanings; just to mention a few things that come to my mind…

I’m not a specialist of social issues, but I can’t help seeing basic income as the main social issue of the 21^st century, because it encompasses many of the most important ones.

Benns: The most common concern is about implementing a basic income guarantee is that too many of us would choose not to work. Why do you believe this won’t be the case?

Gosselin: It has not been the case in any of the projects that I know of where basic income has been implemented for a limited time:  India, Namibia, Dauphin (Manitoba), London (UK), South-Carolina, Alaska. The people I know who work with recipients of social assistance tell me that a majority of them want to work. We all know what happens when they do: not only do they pay the highest income tax possible, 100%, when they reach a ridiculously small amount of supplementary income on top of their allowances, but they have to go through a maze of paperwork to report on it and they are treated as suspects of fraud anyway. It’s no way to encourage work. Unconditional basic income would solve that.

And then, there is that well known experiment: when asked how many of their fellow citizens would stop working if they had basic income, people say that around 80% would do so; and if asked what they would do themselves, most of them say they would keep on working…

It’s a matter of false perception.

Benns: When you imagine Canadian life with this policy in place — say 10 or 20 years of the basic income guarantee — what does the country look like? How has it changed? Gosselin: I imagine it will look more like a democracy. We would have gone through such a turmoil of conversations, discussions and debates on the way to its implementation that we would keep them going, hopefully.

Back to liberté, égalité, fraternité, at long last!

Roderick Benns recently interviewed Tim Ellis about a basic income guarantee. Ellis is a writer, producer, and communications consultant living in Toronto, Ontario. He serves on the executive committee of the NDP in his riding, and also leads the communications team for Basic Income Canada Network. Views expressed here are his own.

Benns: How did you come to be involved with the issue of a basic income guarantee? What drives you to advocate for it? 

Ellis: I spent the first 30 years of my life in the US, and I was heavily involved in the health care debates of Obama’s first term. When I moved to Canada in 2012, I knew I wanted to get involved politically on a similar level and I was looking for issues to get behind.

I’m fascinated by economics and have worked in finance, and I’m also a Millennial and living with the consequences of what we’ve been left by previous generations, so I’m keenly aware of how trends such as automation and outsourcing (aided by decades of neo-liberal policies) are reducing the value of labour on the market and driving a decoupling of wages from productivity.

In my quest for a way to address that issue, I stumbled across an article by former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal in which he explained a basic income. It piqued my interest, so I wrote to his office and he put me in touch with BICN, with whom I volunteer to this day.

I advocate for a basic income because I recognize that it makes both ethical and economic sense. An economy that is widely split between the haves and have-nots is bad for both classes; without sufficient demand from the consumer base, even the most successful capital-holder can’t earn on his or her investments. With the declining value of labour on the market, wages are no longer sufficient to get money into the hands of consumers. A basic income addresses that issue in the simplest, most effective, and most equitable fashion. Ethically speaking, of course, it’s perfectly aligned with Canadian values. We build a better society for all when we take care of each other. This is fundamental to the Canadian experience. Humans are a social species; taking care of each other has been the foundation of our success for thousands of years.

Benns: What about a basic income guarantee makes it a social justice issue? 

Ellis: Any labour market that is predicated on the threat of suffering for failure to work is inherently coercive – and when that market then fails to deliver sufficient jobs, we all share in the blame for the suffering those results. A basic income gives people real agency in their own lives, and real leverage when negotiating with employers. On top of that, one of the great virtues of capitalism is that it drives efficiency; however, one person’s efficiency is another person’s layoff slip. These are very real, very human costs that we all bear. Basic income is the key to building a truly consensual capitalism that allows us to retain the virtues of the market side of our economy while still looking after the human beings that are, after all, the reason for the whole thing.

A basic income also reprioritizes what we mean by “work.” As it stands, you’re only compensated for work the market values and that can deliver a profit for somebody. This means such essential and cherished human endeavours – parenting, leisure time with family and friends, engaging in art or play for the sheer joy of it, and so on – are tallied up as costs, not assets. These are the very heart of the human experience, and a basic income allows those who wish to contribute these essential assets to our society to do so without being punished for it.

Finally, I think there’s a huge mental health cost that our current structure imposes on our children. We’re creating a society that is adapted to constantly competing to take everything possible and to live in constant fear that it could, in turn, all be taken away. Kids go into deep debt to attend university for degrees that might not even get them a job, almost certainly not a job in the field they want, and all the while they know that the penalty for failure is grinding poverty and constant suffering. I don’t know what percentage of my peers suffer from crippling, daily anxiety, but it’s substantial. I refuse to believe that we simply need to accept constant fear and anxiety as the price of progress. I am so incredibly proud of our species. We are more than workers. We are more than consumers. And we need not live in fear.

Benns: The most common concern is about implementing a basic income guarantee is that too many of us would choose not to work. Why do you believe this won’t be the case?

Ellis: The simple answer is the evidence. Unpaid work is fundamental to the human experience. Hobbies, volunteer hours, church and community groups, raising families – that’s all work! It’s just not valued by the market because there’s no profit to it. But it’s valued by people, and so it gets done. Financial compensation is far from the only motivation for human endeavour. We already have several examples of a basic income being secured – the most relevant and most frequently cited in Canada is the “Mincome” pilot project in Dauphin, Manitoba – and the results routinely indicate that people either continue to work or choose to spend more time on valuable investments in the future such as education and child-rearing.

But let’s dive a little further on this one for a moment. When I was a kid, we had a rotary phone at my house. Today, my smartphone has more power than the entire Apollo project – all of NASA’s computational power, in my pocket! People in my generation view total automation as an inevitability. Maybe it will take a thousand years, maybe a hundred, but it’s coming. And when it does, what then? Are we going to have the machines assign us busy-work so we can keep earning paycheques to scrape out a minimum-wage living? We’re already seeing a huge decoupling between productivity and wages, we’re already seeing ten or twenty people being able to do the work that used to take thousands. In any rational society, the premise “less work that people need to do” would be a good thing and should free up people to pursue their own dreams. Instead, because we’ve tied survival to an outdated wage-based model, we get people “freed” from their careers and immediately forced to chase after whatever work remains, no matter how bad it is, just to stay alive. Why is that a smart arrangement? How does society benefit from that?

Benns: When you imagine Canadian life with this policy in place — say 10 years of the basic income guarantee — what does the country look like? How has it changed?

Ellis: Existing trends towards contract labour rather than traditional employment have greatly accelerated, as the precariousness that used to be associated with these more efficient models has been drastically reduced. Small businesses have flourished – a reliable supply of capital to the consumer base has created a much more viable environment for businesses to work within at the same time that freedom from the coercive need to work in highly demanding yet extremely underpaid positions has allowed individuals to go into business for themselves as entrepreneurs. The result is a dynamic local economy.

Public health outcomes have begun to improve sharply, as people are able to access preventative care and as they live without constant anxiety imposing a draining and damaging “fight or flight” mentality. As a result, health care costs have begun to swing downward, just as predicted by the health care organizations that led the way in recognizing a basic income as a crucial investment.

Political engagement has increased, as people feel more directly invested in the political and social system. Basic income is one of the few issues that unites the political spectrum (something that is already true). Political activism remains lively, but without the same sense of alienation and desperation that had for so long set upper and lower classes artificially against one another. Where so many for so long had seen only a ceiling, now there is a firm floor on which to stand for themselves – and the sky is the limit.

Leaders and Legacies is conducting an ongoing campaign for the elimination of poverty in Canada, through this news program. From interviewing well-known Canadians, to researchers, to community support workers, to average people across the country, we will work tirelessly for a more equitable Canada through advocacy, policy change, and the power of stories. 

If you are an organization and would like to speak to us about funding or participating in this campaign, contact us here. If you are an individual and can support our campaign, please use the PayPal button on the front page of this news site. 

One of the federal Liberal Party’s key spokespersons on economic issues, Scott Brison, says his party won’t discount the idea of implementing a basic income guarantee, but says there are other tools at a government’s disposal for addressing inequality.

The Liberal Member of Parliament for Kings-Hants in Nova Scotia, Brison also serves as the Liberals’ critic for finance and national revenue.

“When it all comes down to it, the issue is income inequality,” says Brison, “and it’s a very real problem.”

“My fear is that if inequality is allowed to continue and deepen, it increasingly affects equality of opportunity, too. There will be more people who are born into economic advantage versus people who aren’t,” causing deepening harm to families and to society, says Brison, who also serves as vice-chair of the House of Commons standing committee on finance.

He tells Leaders and Legacies the social and economic consequences of inequality are catastrophic. As well, he is concerned about the trends as shown by a recent study from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. The study shows that job quality has fallen to its lowest level in more than 20 years. The data — over 25 years’ worth – shows the growth of part-time work versus full-time work, self-employment versus traditional paid work, and trends in compensation packages.

While noting he is whole-heartedly committed to reducing income inequality, Brison wouldn’t say whether he favours a basic income guarantee, saying the Liberals are not “espousing a specific path right now.”

Instead, he points to two existing tools already at a government’s disposal – the Child Tax Benefit and the Working Income Tax Benefit, for the working poor.

He says these two measures alone – if properly funded – would go a long way to reducing inequality in Canada.

“So there are ways we can achieve a positive effect, even within our existing tax system.”

Although Brison is not committing to a basic income guarantee, the Liberal Party itself has laid some groundwork, should they choose to go this route.

At a recent Liberal policy convention, resolution number 97 (Basic Income Supplement: Testing a Dignified Approach to Income Security for Working-age Canadians) and resolution number 100 (Creating a Basic Annual Income to be Designed and Implemented for a Fair Economy), were both adopted by federal Liberal delegates.

This has longtime Liberal heavyweights, like Senator Art Eggleton, very happy.

“I take some delight in what happened at the Liberal convention in the spring,” Eggleton previously told Leaders and Legacies. “And when I recently saw Justin (Trudeau) I reminded him of that — and I told him he should promise” that Liberals will make this a reality.

Brison says serious consideration of a basic income guarantee in Canada can be traced as far back as the late 1960s, when Conservative leader Robert Stanfield promised to give it his attention if elected. During this same timeframe, at a Conservative policy convention in 1969, a keen 19-year-old named Hugh Segal first learned about the idea of basic income guarantee. It is a cause the former senator has never let go of, becoming the Tories’ standard bearer on this issue.

Even into the 1980s, the Macdonald commission – famous for its endorsement of free trade – also recommended a basic income guarantee. While Brian Mulroney’s government took up the cause of free trade, making it their signature issue, the recommendation of a basic income guarantee was not seized upon.

Leaders and Legacies is conducting an ongoing campaign for the elimination of poverty in Canada, through this news program. From interviewing well-known Canadians, to researchers, to community support workers, to average people across the country, we will work tirelessly for a more equitable Canada through advocacy, policy change, and the power of stories. 

If you are an organization and would like to speak to us about funding or participating in this campaign, contact us here. If you are an individual and can support our campaign, please use the PayPal button on the front page of this news site. 

Benns: How long has the Kingston Action Group for Basic Income Guarantee been around, and are there other social issues which you advocate for?

Pickard: In November of 2013, the co-founder of the group and I each invited a few people to an informal meeting with Rob Rainer to talk about his fledgling Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) Push campaign for basic income. The next month most of us reconvened to work in earnest to support his campaign. A core group of seven has been working steadily since then. Others have come and gone and we now have about 13 members. The name Kingston Action Group for BIG has evolved over time.

We’ve always focused uniquely on basic income and are too busy with that to think about working on other important issues that we support in spirit. We have two main goals:, to spread awareness and generate discussion and support with the aim of creating a grassroots movement for basic income; and to secure political support for the BIG concept.

Benns: What have you noticed happening in the Kingston Region that gives you hope about a basic income guarantee? 

Pickard: We’ve been gratified to receive support and help from the Kingston community. We have some 100 people whom we update and sometimes ask for help. Most recently, for example, we’ve asked them to host ‘kitchen table talks’ in their homes so we can have in depth discussions of BIG with a few interested people at a time.

Most of us are long-time residents of this small city where overlapping circles ensure that word travels easily and fast. With the help of friends and acquaintances, we’ve reached out to and have been well received by, for example, various faith communities, organized labour organizations, continuing education groups, the francophone community, secondary school and university students and so on. In addition, here as elsewhere, coverage of basic income is increasing in all forms of media. We write and respond to letters, op-eds, interviews, etc. Interest in basic income ignites quickly as people hear of it, and small efforts on our part seem to generate unexpectedly large effects.

Benns: In what way do you try to get this on the agenda or in the thought processes of local politicians?

Pickard: To some extent perhaps it’s simply moxie on our part. We stay in contact with the presidents of the local riding associations and meet with our elected representatives. We bring written material with us, respond to the questions and arguments put to us. We might go two by two, setting up a series of meetings. Whenever we publish op-eds and letters, we see that our local politicians get copies. We sought the support of the MPP candidates in the Provincial election last year and received it from three of the four major party candidates. Most of our local politicians have shown a real readiness to take the feasibility and potential benefits of basic income seriously.

Benns: Do you see a basic income guarantee as replacing other social programs eventually? If so, which ones? 

Pickard: The first question is a simple one. We definitely see basic income as a replacement for Provincial welfare programs. A main reason BIG is so badly needed is that our welfare programs are dysfunctional. They are humiliating, stingy, and altogether mean spirited; they create enormous work disincentives; they trap recipients in poverty. Everyone knows this. So far, governments have tried to remedy the problems by tinkering with program details. But tinkering can’t rescue fundamentally flawed programs. Basic income will not involve complex rules or the micromanagement of people’s lives; access and administration will be simple; there will be total privacy and dignity for recipients who won’t have to answer to any government employee for the way they live or use their money.

The second question is more complex. Which programs to replace depends first on having a full picture of the multiplicity of Federal and Provincial income support mechanisms in Canada today. We need to know the effects of closing/altering the terms of particular programs. There will surely be an ongoing need for health care, vision care, dental and drug benefits, mental health and addiction services, special assistance for people with physical or learning disabilities, etc. In addition it seems likely to be sensible to keep long established programs such as Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan, which have worked well in the past though recent changes may have undermined their efficacy so they are in need of improvement.

Which programs to close or keep can’t be discussed intelligently without access to mega data, expert analysis, and the power necessary to raise and reallocate revenues. It is Government which has those resources. Once the political will to implement BIG exists, the details will have to be worked out by Government, and whatever proposals ensue negotiated with the opposition.

The immediate and downstream benefits of creating a solid income floor for everyone warrant facing this complexity and need for intra-governmental cooperation. Once in place, Basic income can have transformative power. It can restore our democracy, revitalize our economy and recreate a functioning caring Canada.

Leaders and Legacies is conducting an ongoing campaign for the elimination of poverty in Canada, through this news program. From interviewing well-known Canadians, to researchers, to community support workers, to average people across the country, we will work tirelessly for a more equitable Canada through advocacy, policy change, and the power of stories. 

If you are an organization and would like to speak to us about funding or participating in this campaign, contact us here. If you are an individual and can support our campaign, please use the PayPal button on the front page of this news site. 

A four-year project spearheaded by former Prime Minister Paul Martin to improve student achievement on two Ontario reserves has yielded impressive results, new data from the final report reveals.

The project ran from 2010 to 2014 at Kettle and Stony Point First Nation and Walpole Island First Nation. The two reserves partnered with the Martin Aboriginal Education Initiative to see if such long-term, focused efforts on reading and writing would be successful in raising student achievement scores as measured by EQAO – the same test that all Ontario students take in Grades 3 and 6.

The two schools involved in the long-term project were Hillside School, operated by Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, and Walpole Island Elementary School, operated by Walpole Island First Nation. Both schools offer Senior Kindergarten to Grade 8. English is the language of instruction and Ojibwa is taught at all grade levels.

The program was called Wiiji Kakendaasodaa, or, in English, Let’s All Learn. When it began, most students did not meet the provincial standards in reading or writing. However, when the program ended, most students met or exceeded provincial standards.

Other Facts from the final report

• Individual schools exceeded provincial achievement levels at times.
• During the program, 26 students completed the EQAO in Grade 3 (2011) and again in Grade 6 (2014) – 69 percent of those students maintained or rose to the provincial standard in reading between those grades, and 73 percent maintained or rose to the provincial standard in writing.
• In reading, girls outperformed boys every year during the program – 71 percent of girls and 62 percent of boys in Grade 3, and 78 percent of girls and 64 percent of boys in Grade 6 met or exceeded the provincial standard in 2013-2014.
• No consistent differences in writing were evident between boys and girls.

The program was developed with assistance from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. To work toward success in the program, schools increased teaching time for reading and writing and teachers were engaged in continuous, intensive, professional learning.

All students — 473 in total — who were enrolled in Senior Kindergarten to Grade 6 during the program participated, 233 boys and 240 girls. During the program, the percentage of students identified for speech and language services decreased from 45 percent to 19 percent in Senior Kindergarten to Grade 3.

The report concludes that there is every reason to expect that with effective teaching, “First Nations students can excel as speakers, listeners, readers and writers in two or more languages and enjoy all the associated cultural, social, educational and economic benefits.”