babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

So who is promoting Basic Income in Canada?

Pondering
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2013

TBC

 

 

 


Comments

Pondering
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2013

Basic Income is gaining popularity around the world as an approach that works and saves money over the long run. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sen-art-eggleton/art-eggleton-basic-income_...

It's Time For Canada To Test A Basic Income

Sen. Art Eggleton (Liberal)

Canadian Senator and former Mayor of Toronto and Member of Parliament

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/26/ontario-basic-income_n_9328264.html

 the Liberal government of Premier Kathleen Wynne said it would “work with communities, researchers and other stakeholders in 2016 to determine how best to design and implement a Basic Income pilot.”

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/guaranteed-income-has-merit...

The federal minister responsible for reducing poverty says he is interested in the idea of a guaranteed income in Canada.

Veteran economist Jean-Yves Duclos, who is Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, told The Globe and Mail the concept has merit as a policy to consider after the government implements more immediate reforms promised during the election campaign.

 

http://www.basicincome.org/news/2016/02/canada-manitoba-liberals-vow-to-...

Rana Bokhari, leader of the Liberal party in the Canadian province of Manitoba, has come out publicly to say that the party will conduct two basic income pilot projects if they are elected in April 2016.

Their proposed projects bear some similarities to the “Mincome” experiment undertaken in Dauphin and Winnipeg (Manitoba) in the 1970’s. The Mincome experiment, however, was cut short when a new government was elected in 1979, and a final report was never issued. Moreover, the Manitoba liberals believe that those results that were recorded from the Dauphin experiment are now dated, and new data are needed to make accurate policy decisions.

The answer to the question posed in the title of the thread is:

Rana Bokhari,(unelected) leader of the Liberal party of Manitoba

Liberal Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Jean-Yves Duclos, economist

Premier Kathleen Wynne, Ontario, Liberal

Sen. Art Eggleton (Liberal)

 


alan smithee
Offline
Joined: Jan 7 2010

The problem is the Conservatives would oppose it and the Liberals would scrap it to appease them.


Geoff
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2009

alan smithee wrote:

The problem is the Conservatives would oppose it and the Liberals would scrap it to appease them.

What is the NDP's position on a basic income? The party was silent on the issue during the campaign. Balanced budgets seems to be a much higher priority.


alan smithee
Offline
Joined: Jan 7 2010

I don't think that matters. The Cons seem to be controlling Parliament because the Liberals are weak-kneed wimps who apparently are unaware that they have a majority government and hold all the cards.


iyraste1313
Offline
Joined: Jan 18 2014

Basic Income?

Quite the nebulous statement!

When money is fiat, basic income means nothing....when real estate assets inflate in the 100´s of percentage? Food? Hydro? ad nauseum, where Canada thanks to its brilliant economic planners has become totally dependant on practically everything imported!

What is needed is security! Housing guarantees! No foreclosures! Food security! This means No!  to globalization...implement programs for self reliance and regional autonomy......Above all no to predatory perverted capitalism!....the rest is bs! Sorry!


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002

I think you might be well-advised to read up on Basic Income, Guaranteed Annual Income and other names for this scheme. Don't tell me you don't think it is important to fight for reforms, including something more inclusive than what EI has become and less humiliating and inadequate than social welfare. There is a hell of a lot of difference between having $500 - or less, they always find reasons to cut it -  than $1000 a month, even though the latter remains below the poverty line in cities.

No foreclosures for people who have (mortgaged) homes, but also more social housing and protection of tenants for those who don't. There is no contradiction between this and "autonomous" solutions such as community gardens and groceries - I don't know what you mean by self-reliance because that can also be a rightwing shibboleth... but I think and hope you mean co-operative labour and initiatives. Sometimes your posts are very hard to follow. I like shit-kicking, but I also like a bit of coherence.

Obviously we also have to fight for socially-useful jobs building and operating public transport, chidcare centres, sustainable social housing (and farming, of course) but it isn't either-or.


alan smithee
Offline
Joined: Jan 7 2010

It could be possible. But the government will have to abandon welfare for corporations and personal pay raises. That's not likely to happen.

I see the opposite extreme taking place where social welfare will continue to shrink,more people will live in poverty and failing companies like Bombardier will continue to receive blank cheques.


Pondering
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2013

alan smithee wrote:

It could be possible. But the government will have to abandon welfare for corporations and personal pay raises. That's not likely to happen.

I see the opposite extreme taking place where social welfare will continue to shrink,more people will live in poverty and failing companies like Bombardier will continue to receive blank cheques.

This is going to cost less than our current mix of programs over the long run. That is why Liberals are supporting it. It makes sense economically. 


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002

Here is an opinion piece by Art Eggleton (yep, the Liberal):

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/02/29/opinion/time-try-basic-income...

I don't think this scheme would "end poverty", but it would reduce the most dire cases. And we still would have to fight for jobs - socially-useful jobs. I'd like more input from labour and popular groups...


Mr. Magoo
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2002

Quote:
It could be possible. But the government will have to abandon welfare for corporations and personal pay raises.

Just to make the math simple, let's imagine the government approving a massive 10% pay raise for every MP.  That would be $16,700 x 338 = $5.6M.

If the GAI were set at $20k/year, that would pay for 280 individuals.

 


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002

That is true, Magoo, but the idea is also that there is a huge bureaucracy basically finding any way of denying benefits. I agree that MPs pay is a red herring.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

A while ago, which I noted in the Sask NDP thread, the Sask NDP promoted a basic income pilot project (link).  Some right wingers also like the idea, feeling it can be cheaper to just get rid of all the various benefits and tax credits and streamline them into one basic income program.  I dunno.  Might be a good idea.  Devil is in the details, as they say.

ETA:  Here's a list from Wikipedia of some people/groups who've expressed some support for the idea:

Quote:
As of 2014, the Liberal Party of Canada,[2] the Green Party of Canada,[3] the Pirate Party of Canada,[4] provincial party Québec Solidaire[5] and former conservative senator Hugh Segal[6] advocate for basic income in Canada. Mike Redmond, leader of the New Democratic Party of Prince Edward Island, supports a basic income pilot project in Prince Edward Island.[7]

Neither the LPC nor the GPC had it in their platforms.


iyraste1313
Offline
Joined: Jan 18 2014

There is a hell of a lot of difference between having $500....

...you miss my essential point!
Nor do you appreciate the fact that we are entering a new era, which previously lasted from the second world  war til the beginnings of the bursting bubbles, til now where as G20 just pointed out...Keynesism is dead, there are no more financial solutions by Central Bank/Government cartels....

I´m talking about the death of fiat currencies!

$500, $1000, take your pick! Will be nothing, no purchasing power! zero!

So yes reformism is dead!

It´s time for new strategies, newq visions! 


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Here's an official parliamentary petition calling on Canada's Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, "to join with interested Provinces, Municipalities and Indigenous communities to fund and launch experimental pilot Mincome projects, as soon as possible, in order to determine the efficacy and viability of a Guaranteed Minimum Income in Canada, and to include funding for these projects in the 2016-2017 budget."  So sign today!

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-211


alan smithee
Offline
Joined: Jan 7 2010

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It could be possible. But the government will have to abandon welfare for corporations and personal pay raises.

Just to make the math simple, let's imagine the government approving a massive 10% pay raise for every MP.  That would be $16,700 x 338 = $5.6M.

If the GAI were set at $20k/year, that would pay for 280 individuals.

 

Here in Québec,our government,in the middle of an austerity agenda,rewarded themselves a $50K pay raise. THat's more than 10%. And whether that money would benefit anyone for a basic income is not the point.

The point is that money spent,especially the billions spent on corporate welfare,should be redistributed to public spending.

You hear it all the time. 'We don't have the money' . 'Balanced budgets' , 'fiscal responsibility' etc...

The fact is that they DO have the money. It's just that they want to use that money to pad their pay cheques and pensions and throw boatloads of money at corporations who take the money and turn around and lay off thousands of workers.

The days of public spending,particularly spending on social programs,are over. And that's been the case for decades now. I'm sure you're bright enough to recognize that.

The idea of a minimum income is social justice. Do you really believe our governments,provincially or federal give a rat's ass about that? There's no money to be made for their corporate masters,so forget about it.


montrealer58
Offline
Joined: Jun 30 2014

There are many capitalists who do not buy into austerity. 


miv
Offline
Joined: Sep 26 2015

iyraste1313 wrote:

What is needed is security! Housing guarantees! No foreclosures! Food security! This means No! 

Not sure what you really have in mind here, but it sounds like some version of a strong, activist state that gets properly stuck in, protecting people and directing their lives in a fairly intrusive and (at best!) paternalistic fashion, making decisions about how much food they need and where they deserve to live. 

A lot of people -- on the left, I mean -- don't really see this as something for which governments have much talent.  They see basic income as a way  of making poverty history which doesn't grant the state, with it's great clumsy hands and its perennial confusion of motives (many of them not remotely admirable or people friendly) the role of universal busibody and moral authority. 

Combine the basic income with a massive increase in non-market housing - ideally as co-operatives, built or compulsory-purchased from a private housing sector (which it would be easy to first trip into a downward value spiral with a regime of draconian rent controls, standards and crippling fines!).  The result would be, effectively, an end to poverty which also sets people free -- individuals, families of every sort -- from the predations of capital and the ambiguous ministrations of the state.  

If I wanted to wax lyrically idealistic (idealistically lyrical?), I'd suggest this could be a first step in granting people local, collective historical agency over their own lives - giving them the opportunity to forge the cultures, and social networks, and institutions of an everyday life that reflects human needs, rather than one shaped by the conscripting, co-ordinating managerialism of the state and the exploitative imperatives of capital. 

If local economies, made up of community enterprises and worker co-ops, could be nurtured in this environment, then history could find itself in sight of the moment when it can give the finger, out its rear window, to capitalism and the managerial state. 

 

 


miv
Offline
Joined: Sep 26 2015

iyraste1313 wrote:

What is needed is security! Housing guarantees! No foreclosures! Food security! This means No! 

Not sure what you really have in mind here, but it sounds like some version of a strong, activist state that gets properly stuck in, protecting people and directing their lives in a fairly intrusive and (at best!) paternalistic fashion, making decisions about how much food they need and where they deserve to live. 

A lot of people -- on the left, I mean -- don't really see this as something for which governments have much talent.  They see basic income as a way  of making poverty history which doesn't grant the state, with it's great clumsy hands and its perennial confusion of motives (many of them not remotely admirable or people friendly) the role of universal busibody and moral authority. 

Combine the basic income with a massive increase in non-market housing - ideally as co-operatives, built or compulsory-purchased from a private housing sector (which it would be easy to first trip into a downward value spiral with a regime of draconian rent controls, standards and crippling fines!).  The result would be, effectively, an end to poverty which also sets people free -- individuals, families of every sort -- from the predations of capital and the ambiguous ministrations of the state.  

If I wanted to wax lyrically idealistic (idealistically lyrical?), I'd suggest this could be a first step in granting people local, collective historical agency over their own lives - giving them the opportunity to forge the cultures, and social networks, and institutions of an everyday life that reflects human needs, rather than one shaped by the conscripting, co-ordinating managerialism of the state and the exploitative imperatives of capital. 

If local economies, made up of community enterprises and worker co-ops, could be nurtured in this environment, then history could find itself in sight of the moment when it can give the finger, out its rear window, to capitalism and the managerial state. 

 

 


montrealer58
Offline
Joined: Jun 30 2014

On one hand, 'basic income' activists speak of 'bureaucratic reductions'. This is a deflationary attitude. Instead of assessing income as they have to in the current austerity regime, social workers can actually spend time adding value to the lives of their clients (which is probably why they went to college or university in the first place)

Then the rents will tend to rise to the guaranteed minimum income, so if you don't regulate landlords you will see all the benefits get wiped away by a particularly parasitic part of the business community.

There is no question that incomes for the poor have to rise, however we don't want to add to the poor by throwing thousands of social workers out of work or letting rents rise for everyone.  

 


iyraste1313
Offline
Joined: Jan 18 2014

Not sure what you really have in mind here...

thanks for your thoughtful comments......what I`ve been trying to focus on here is the need to be thinking of social forms of organization to protect the security needs of people, as the financial system continues its collapse (The biggest banks are already in deep trouble,  much more to come!). But within the context of community and bioregional autonomy, where people decide through accessible forms of democracy, not the corrupt bs system we seem to still have faith in?

It means coordination at the local level to encourage forms of natural agriculture and its distribution systems to the people though their markets, whatever! What it means is to protect the rights of people to live in their homes, whether renters, mortgage holders whatever! It means the promotion through local autonomous social structures of local energy systems using our rights to the wind and sun and waterfalls locally!

It requires a form of social organization outside the capitalist system, under the control of local autonomous community and bioregion.....

Yes it means self reliance, as individulas and families and communities and bioregions...

It means no more distractions of reformist measures which don`t work..the system is a monster beyond so called (puppet) government control...reform is impossible and to focus on reform is just pure distraction...sorry this is how I see it...and until others recognize this reality and start working together as they are in so many other territories, we in Canada are doomed to the most frightful repression and control and starvation....


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

A couple of opposing views on basic income:

Carol Goar, the Star's columnist who focusses on poverty issues, opposes it: ‘Basic annual income’ loaded with pitfalls: Goar

Rob Rainer and Kelly Ernst, who work for agencies promoting the idea, favour it:  How can we not afford a ‘basic annual income’?

Not sure what I think.  But it seems an okay idea to try. 


montrealer58
Offline
Joined: Jun 30 2014

Landlord greed will expand into the welfare available for it.


iyraste1313
Offline
Joined: Jan 18 2014

Landlord greed will expand into the welfare available for it...

precisely!

As long as the managers and their directors and shareholders have control, nothing will change...the controls must change...system change! social organization, General assembly, real democracy...these are the kinds of things that matter!


montrealer58
Offline
Joined: Jun 30 2014

Provincial regulation of landlords would be a good start.


Mr. Magoo
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2002

I can only speak for Ontario, but aren't there already limits to the amount that a landlord can hike a tenant's rent?


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Yes.  But there's a whole movement, backed by a whole industry (paralegal), that undermines this, often employing "personal use" (IE, my dear aunt is going to be moving in, and I've sworn an affidavit with the Landlord Tenant Board too -- so here's your notice*) as a means to boot out tenants and then later jacking up rents once the tenant has left.  Or if not employing a creative (basically fictional) use of "personal use", then it's often suddenly following a lease to the letter by a landlord that previously had never raised rents and had always been easy-going (though maybe a bit negligent with repairs -- "don't bother me and I won't bother you", which changes to "I'm now gonna bother you all the time so that you'll leave and I can jack up the rent."  -- warning letters, termination notices, new rules, inspections, charging for parking that used to be free, clamping down on storage space in common areas, etc.)  Or, another ploy is above guideline increases.  Do some bullshit repairs/upgrades and apply for an AGI (a pricey option, but landlords will do it).  So, despite the guideline rent increase not supposed to be over the consumer price index (maximum 2.5% per year, I think), this is often over-ridden.  Toronto tenants have a tough time finding affordable rents now.

* if it does turn out to be a false claim, sure, tenants can later (up to a year after) challenge it and receive some compensation, but by then they're out and the landlord is usually further ahead anyway; so that prospect isn't a huge deterrent -- and tenants rarely follow through with such a challenge after the fact.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Well, I posted a link to an official parliamentary petition promoting Basic Income, and no one indicated signing it.  So, I'm posting again.

__

Here's an official parliamentary petition calling on Canada's Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, "to join with interested Provinces, Municipalities and Indigenous communities to fund and launch experimental pilot Mincome projects, as soon as possible, in order to determine the efficacy and viability of a Guaranteed Minimum Income in Canada, and to include funding for these projects in the 2016-2017 budget."  So sign today!

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-211


Pondering
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2013

mark_alfred wrote:

Well, I posted a link to an official parliamentary petition promoting Basic Income, and no one indicated signing it.  So, I'm posting again.

__

Here's an official parliamentary petition calling on Canada's Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, "to join with interested Provinces, Municipalities and Indigenous communities to fund and launch experimental pilot Mincome projects, as soon as possible, in order to determine the efficacy and viability of a Guaranteed Minimum Income in Canada, and to include funding for these projects in the 2016-2017 budget."  So sign today!

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-211

Signed.


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002

Here is the Québec Revenu de base site; for the moment it seems to be in French only, though aspiring to bilingualism. Clicking on "English", the content is still in French, not translated yet.

http://revenudebase.quebec/


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments