Borrowed from; James P. Mulvale, PhD, RSW Associate Professor, Dept. of Justice Studies University of Regina (Canada)
7 March 2008
The economic security system in Canada is in need of fundamental reform, if significant progress is to be made in decreasing poverty and increasing equality of incomes. In fact, it is perhaps to misnomer to speak of Canada having an economic security "system" at all. The current agglomeration of government benefits (including income-tested demogrants, contributory social insurance, and means-tested social assistance) and in-kind services (including publicly insured health services under threat of privatization, very inadequate social housing programs, and food banks for the hungry) are delivered across multiple levels of government, community-based human service agencies, voluntary sector organizations, and private charity.
To be sure, the National Child Benefit (NCB) - an income-tested benefit paid by the federal government to families with young children - was a significant addition to the Canadian economic security framework in the 1990s. In one sense, however, the NCB was just a belated replacement for the universal Family Allowance that had been cut in stages and finally eliminated by the federal government in 1992. Despite the NCB's goal of enhancing economic security of families with children, the proportion of poor children in Canada has remained unchanged since the Parliamentary resolution to end child poverty in 1989 (Campaign 2000, 2007).
Political rhetoric attacking the poor and championing punitive anti-poverty approaches such as workfare has arguably toned down in Canada, after it reached its peak in the late 1990s. Nonetheless, the after-effects of the restructuring of social assistance (led by right wing governments in provinces such as British Colombia, Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick), and of severely restricted access to unemployment insurance (led by the federal government), continue to marginalize and exclude low income and poor people in Canada. Although the overall poverty rate in Canada has come down from it 1996 level of 15.7%, it is still over 11% - the same as it was in 1980 (National Council of Welfare, 2007a). Even the extended economic boom that began in the late-1990s has failed to ensure prosperity for all, as 'good' jobs have disappeared and levels of income inequality have increased (Yalnizyan, 2007). In particular, high rates of poverty persist among economically vulnerable groups such as single mothers, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and new immigrants.
In response to the continuing failure to end economic insecurity in Canada, various proposals have come forth in recent years for the re-configuration of income security programs (Scott, n.d.; Freiler et al, 2004; MISWAA, 2006; Battle et al, 2006). These proposals have all been based on the assumption that the existing array of social benefits and labour market measures can be modified, extended, and made more generous in order to reach the goal of increased levels of economic security. Such attempts to comprehensively re-think our approach to economic security in Canada have been laudable and in many respects progressive. However they have shied away from fundamental questions about the underlying principles of our social safety net in Canada. Over the last three decades of welfare state retrenchment in Canada, we have remained wedded to the assumption that the labour market must be the primary means of economic livelihood for almost everyone in Canada. We have continued to assume that the state should fill the gaps in (or provide incentives for) labour market attachment through a variety of partial, uncoordinated, and often difficult to access social benefits, and that paid employment is the sine qua non of economic security.
It may be time to question the viability and usefulness of this existing model of economic security. It may be time to move, in incremental, pragmatic and fiscally prudent steps, towards a policy of Guaranteed Adequate Income (GAI) for all in Canada. Such a policy framework would have the potential to ensure a modest but adequate standard of living for everyone in Canada, regardless of one's attachment (or lack thereof) to the labour market. The design a GAI policy for Canada could, in principle, tailor income to the particular circumstances of people's lives, such as responsibility for children, disabling conditions, or social disadvantage.
One potential component in such a policy framework for GAI could be Basic Income (BI). Canadians tend to be unfamiliar with the discussion and debates over the last several years on BI that were initially stimulated by Van Parijs (1995, 2000, 2004). He defines universal basic income (UBI) as:
an income paid by a government, at a uniform level and at regular intervals, to each adult member of society. The grant is paid, and the level is fixed, irrespective of whether the person is rich or poor, lives alone or with others, is willing to work or not. In most versions ‚ certainly in mine ‚ it is granted to not only to citizens but to all permanent residents.
The UBI is called 'basic' because it is something on which a person can safely count, a material foundation in which a life can firmly rest. Any other income ‚ whether in cash or in kind, from work or savings, from the market or the state ‚ can lawfully be added to it. (Van Parijs, 2004, pp. 12-13).
In terms of practical implementation, Van Parijs (2004, p.13) argues that "the easiest and safest way forward" towards a UBI is "enacting a UBI first at a level below subsistence," but then "increasing it over time" until it reaches "the highest sustainable" level. This path of implementation would certainly match the Canadian track record of doing social policy in cautious and incremental steps, given the necessities of achieving political consensus through compromise, and negotiating the complications between federal and provincial levels of jurisdiction in delivering social programs.
It seems to be the case that whatever the ideal merits of a BI or GAI model, such an approach is a 'hard sell' in Canada. The defining characteristics of BI include no means test and no work requirement, but many social policy experts and opinion leaders in the media in Canada argue that such a model contradicts mainstream Canadian social policy assumptions and broader social values such as the inviolability of the "work ethic." BI program or a GAI policy also, at least implicitly, call into question the potential of the labour market (especially one that operates on neo-liberal principles and promotes the development of "human capital") to provide adequate economic security for all.
Despite such current widespread scepticism, however, models resembling "guaranteed adequate income" or "basic income" have periodically cycled through social policy debates in Canada over the past several decades. In the 1930s in Alberta, the Social Credit Party of William Aberhart argued for regular cash payments made by the government to all, as a means of enhancing consumer purchasing power, stimulating the economy, and redistributing wealth. This party achieved power in the province, but its promise of a "social credit" paid to all citizens proved difficult to implement (Fitzpatrick, 1999, p. 13). In 1971 Senator David Croll and the Senate Committee on Poverty, which he chaired, released a report recommending guaranteed annual income. In a speech shortly after the release of the Report, Croll (1972) described his scheme as using the negative income tax on a uniform, national basis, based on need. Incorporated in it would be a work incentive to ensure that those who work will receive and keep more income than those who do not. The plan [is] to be financed and administered by the federal government making uniform cash payments to all resident Canadians in economic need. Payments would vary by family size and need and would establish a floor level below which no family unit would be permitted to fall.
Croll (1972) added that it was important to "avoid a piecemeal and fragmented approach to income security" and to this end he spoke in favour of income from the federal government, services from the provincial government, [and] delivery of all services under the umbrella of The Canada Assistance Act which is now on the books and adequate to meet requirements.
He also saw this guaranteed annual income plan as a complementary program to "three untouchable measures," namely the Canada Pension Plan, Unemployment Insurance, and agreements with Native Canadians. In the late 1970s, there was a version of guaranteed annual income (dubbed "Mincome") that was piloted in Manitoba by the federal and provincial governments, although few results of the experiment were published, and it fell off the policy-making agenda after 1979 (Hum and Simpson, 2001). In 1985 the Macdonald Commission recommended that a guaranteed annual income scheme (called the Universal Income Security Program or UISP) be adopted, as a streamlined and more comprehensive alternative to much of the existing welfare state. However the level of support was set at such a low level that the UISP met with strong opposition from the Canadian labour movement, among others (Mulvale, 2001, p. 100).
More recent benchmarks in the discussion of Basic Income in Canada have been the publication of two relatively brief and accessibly written books by Lerner et al (1999) and Blais (2002). Both of these books introduced the concept and rationales of Basic Income, and addressed general questions in regard to its implementation in a Canadian context. The original publication of Blais's book in French (with the title Un revenu garanti for tous) occasioned a feature article in the QuČbec daily newspaper Le Soleil (25 February 2001, p. A5) which was entitled "Une allocation universelle initiČe par Ottawa, ? 300$ par mois." A lengthy review of BI-like approaches by Lionel-HenriÝGroulx (2005) was also published in French.
In early 2003, the Canadian Council on Social Development convened "A Working Conference on Strategies to Ensure Economic Security for All Canadians" in Ottawa. At this meeting Sally Lerner of the Basic Income Network "noted that a major challenge lies in how a secure economic foundation can be created for the increasing numbers of 'flexible' workers demanded by employers." The discussion also "raised many important questions regarding governments' responsibilities in providing basic income security, as well as social services and resources, to all citizens." While Basic Income did not predominate as a discussion topic at this meeting, it was among the approaches discussed.
The Victoria Status of Women Action Group in British Columbia has promoted the idea of a "Guaranteed Livable Income" in a public statement (L'Hirondelle, 2004). An associated group called Livable Income For Everyone (LIFE), uses a website (http://www.livableincome.org/) to educate and advance the debate on this model of economic security. In September 2004 feminists from across the country met in Pictou, Nova Scotia, and developed a "Feminist Statement on Guaranteed Living Income" (Lakeman et al, 2004). In late 2006, a blog posted on the Progressive Economists Forum cited numerous pieces of evidence that indicated "Signs of Life in Canada's GAI Movement" (Dubois, 2006). An activists' group called Citizen's Income Toronto works in that city to promote the model of "an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship".
In June 2007, a conference was held at the University of Regina on the theme of "Economic Security for All in Saskatchewan: Weaving an Unbreakable Social Network." Basic Income was a topic of discussion and debate at this event, and a keynote speaker was Dr. Yannick Vanderborght of the Basic Income Earth Network based in Belgium. In the summer of 2007 the National Anti-Poverty Organization launched a network to study and promote the model of Guaranteed Adequate Income in the Canadian context.
In order to sound out current interest in the idea of Basic Income, three Focus Groups were convened to explore the desirability and feasibility of this model in three different cities in Saskatchewan in 2005. The thirty-two participants across the three groups were exactly evenly divided between those with direct personal experience of living in poverty (n = 16), and those who worked as anti-poverty activists in community-based organizations (n = 16), with one participant in the latter category having been previously poor. The gender breakdown was 19 women and 13 men. At least five participants had a disabling condition, and at least three participants were of Aboriginal ancestry.
The size and selective composition of these Focus Groups do not permit broad generalization of the findings across entire the Saskatchewan population, let alone the Canadian public. Nevertheless these Focus Groups do provide some in-depth and rich information on how Basic Income is perceived by a representative sample of people who are living on the 'front-line' of anti-poverty struggles. The themes which emerged in the Focus Groups were expressed articulately and often passionately by the participants. For these reasons, the discussion in these Focus Groups may well be illuminating in regard to framing and engaging in a broader debate on the merits and possible implementation of a scheme such as Basic Income in Canada.
The Focus Group deliberations are organized into six categories of themes and issues below.
A strong and sometimes predominant theme in the Focus Groups was the cruelty and counter-productivity of government attempts to force social assistance recipients into employment. Such attempts do not recognize, it was argued, difficulties that social assistance recipients face in coping with life below the poverty line, in dealing with family responsibilities such as care of young children, and in confronting personal challenges such as disability, mental illness or addiction. Schemes to force social assistance recipients into the labour market were seen as emotionally abusive, personally stigmatizing, and not successful in helping the presumed beneficiaries to obtain secure, steady, decently paid jobs. Workfare-like schemes were also seen as an impediment to individuals wanting to further their education and pursue training programs that would enable them to obtain good jobs.
Aside from such problems with social assistance and workfare-like measures, the Focus Groups described with passion and in detail the overall lack of security actually provided by the current income maintenance system in Canada. Twenty years of cuts to and deterioration of our social safety net ‚ including unemployment insurance, and financial support for post-secondary education and training ‚ have left people economically vulnerable and have trapped them in poor jobs. Offloading of program responsibilities from the federal to the provincial and on to the local level of government has made social programs weaker, and has led to a much higher reliance on 'charitable' measures in local communities. It was argued that local government and community-based organizations do not have the fiscal capacity or organizational resources to design and deliver good programs for economic security
In regard to day to day program delivery, Focus Group participants noted that income security workers have had much less discretion in recent years to take individual circumstances into account, and to tailor programs to individual clients. They also remarked that it requires "hard work" to negotiate the income support system as a poor person, leaving little time or energy to invest in programs that are designed to help you, or to tend to your other responsibilities in life.
Other strongly emphasized points made in the Focus Groups concerning the problems in the existing income security system included the following:
This category of Focus Group themes summarizes what Group members had to say about underlying principles or rationales for Basic Income, based on their understanding of the BI model, as well as their lived experience with the current economic security programs in Canada. The discussion in this regard ranged broadly, and is summarized in five sub-headings below.
The Focus Groups very strongly emphasized the continuing relevance and attraction of the principle of universality in the design and delivery of social programs. They cited this principle in their discussion of a range of programs ‚ including early learning and child care, health care, and income support measures. Participants pointed to the advantages of universal entitlements in social programs, including the lack of stigma for beneficiaries, the elimination of the red-tape and expense of setting and policing eligibility criteria, and breaking down the facile bifurcation between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor.
All three of the Focus Group argued for the need for an expanded, multi-faceted, and more inclusive definition of "work." There was strong agreement that our understanding of work must include not just what we do for wages or a salary in the paid labour force, but also the unpaid work that people do at home caring for children and performing domestic labour. The question arose of why we are only considered to be of value as human beings when we are "producing" in the formal, economic sense. The groups also observed that there is no recognition of the 'personal work' in which many people receiving government financial assistance are engaged, such as overcoming emotional or social problems, or enhancing one's life skills and individual resources. Such efforts can increase one's chances for success, fulfilment, and quality of life in paid employment, in the community, and in family life. One participant stressed that quality of life, and having dignity and meaning in one's life, is more important than just "having a job."
Focus Groups members for the most part rejected the argument that a full fledged Basic Income would result in lazy and unproductive lifestyles. It was remarked in a moment of levity that the "Malibu surfer," who is famously depicted in Basic Income literature as the prototypical free rider, was a bit hard to imagine in wintertime on the Canadian prairies. In general, Focus Group participants argued that such "free riders" on Basic Income would eventually get bored and feel unfulfilled in their lives. It was felt that most people are motivated to be active and self-reliant. Freedom from compulsory labour market participation would enable people to spend more time with their children, help friends and neighbours, and do volunteer work. It was noted that the current lack of recognition for volunteerism is peculiar, given that the demand for volunteers has increased due to cuts to social programs and in the number of paid staff in human services.
The case was made in the Focus Groups that there is an obligation upon people to contribute to the community in meaningful ways, whether it be through paid employment, unpaid work in the family, or volunteering in the community. While people generally want to take advantage of labour market and educational opportunities, they resent being compelled to go to work or school.
Focus Group participants very strongly emphasized the lack of economic security available in today's paid labour force. They expressed some willingness to entertain the potential of Basic Income to counteract precariousness and vulnerability in the workforce. A host of problems in the labour market were cited, including the increasing proportion of work that is part-time, short-term, low-skilled, and poorly paid, as well as the general downward pressure on wages due to globalization. The case was made for increasing the quantity of well paid and secure jobs Notwithstanding the availability of a universal Basic Income, Focus Group participants saw the need for labour market reforms that would enhance economic security. The measures suggested included:
The question was raised in the Focus Groups as to whether Basic Income and/or labour market reforms would make existing labour shortages in Saskatchewan worse. Focus Group participants expressed some optimism that if appropriated connections are made between economic and social policy, then economic security could be achieved in Saskatchewan through a combination of good jobs, humane conditions of paid work, and adequate and innovative income support programs that provide for people outside the labour market.
While this theme was not a predominant one in the Focus Groups, it was advanced by some participants in very articulate and sometimes passionate ways. It was argued that poverty, actual or threatened unemployment, and other manifestations of economic insecurity serve 'positive' functions in the global, profit-oriented economy. They are means for economic elites to hold wages down, impose "disciplinary measures" on working people and the poor, and dampen expectations for economic justice or re-distribution. It was argued that BI would tip the balance of economic power somewhat more towards the poor and economically marginalized. BI was also seen as a possible antidote to the rise of voluntary charity as the preferred means of 'helping' the poor, because BI is based on the principle that social entitlements are rights and should be funded through the public purse.
It was stated in Focus Group discussions that BI proposes the "modest" goal of adequate standards of living for all, and holds the potential to realize the "big dream" of levelling economic inequalities in fundamental ways. In this sense, BI confronts the pro-business view that "there is no alternative" to market-driven neo-liberalism, and presents instead a vision of the "common good" and a new and more just "social contract."
Although this theme was not a major preoccupation, it did surface and was enthusiastically discussed in one of the Focus Groups. It was argued that BI is an environmentally sensible and appealing approach. It reduces the pressure to achieve "prosperity" through full employment and economic growth, which result in overproduction, over-consumption, resource depletion, pollution, and related environmental problems. BI focuses on re-distribution rather than expansion of wealth. If people are assured of a basic level of economic security, they are more likely to accept the necessity of producing and consuming less.
In order to effectively address environmental problems, it would no doubt be necessary to combine BI with other measures such as green taxes, public education on environmental issues, and laws to control pollution. It would also be necessary to re-distribute wealth not just within nations but also between them, in order to ensure adequate standards of living around the globe. Something like a BI on the international level might very well be an essential component, it was argued, if we are to avert ecological calamities and leave behind a liveable biosphere for our children and grandchildren.
Questions were raised in the Focus Groups concerning the cost of BI, and whether or not it would be an affordable government expenditure. One participant argued that BI would in fact not be affordable at the provincial level ‚ only potentially at the federal level. Suggestions emerged that BI might be both more affordable and more just in its design if it was targeted to those living at lower income levels. One suggestion in this regard was that BI could be introduced as a supplement to means-tested social assistance payments, with the aim of bringing recipients up to an income level of approximately C$30,000 per year.
There was some concern expressed that BI could be an incentive to be lazy for those who do not want to work, and in this sense a potential waste of money. The question was also raised about whether the rich should receive a BI benefit, or whether it should at least be "clawed back" from the wealthy in a post hoc fashion through the tax system.
There was a great deal of discussion in the Focus Groups about how a potential BI scheme might fit in with other income support programs at the provincial and federal levels. A general caveat was raised ‚ there was a worry expressed that the introduction of BI might play into the further dismantling of the welfare state, and that it would justify the replacement of a range of current programs with one alterative but inadequate benefit, leaving the poor even worse off than they are now. The argument was made that a cautious approach would need to be taken in any future attempt to implement BI, to ensure that it would provide benefits at a level that would ensure a modicum of economic security, and that it would not be used as an excuse to do away with existing programs that pay better benefits.
Recent initiatives in social programs have been aimed at children, especially the National Child Benefit, and the federal-provincial agreements on early learning and child care of the previous Liberal government. (The Focus Groups were held before the election of the federal Conservative government in 2006, which introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit of $100 per month per child for families with children under six years of age. Therefore this topic did not come up for discussion in the Focus Groups.) Questions were raised in regard to if and how any future BI initiative would interact with child-specific benefits, given that most proposed versions of BI approach are targeted at adults. A BI targeted to low-income adults was seen as a complementary measure to steps taken in recent years to ameliorate child poverty. Focus Groups participants felt that public spending priorities should not be focussed only on children. While the introduction of the National Child Benefit was seen as a good step, it was also noted that poor children live in poor families, and that their parents (and other adults) should not be neglected when it comes to spending to alleviate poverty
Other questions were raised about whether BI should replace or augment existing programs. Great emphasis was also placed on the importance of indexing benefit levels of even a partial BI scheme to the cost of living, given the fact that the failure to raise Saskatchewan social assistance rates in any appreciable way for several years has led to a dramatic decline in the real level of this benefit. Also, the question was raised of how to balance 'in cash' and 'in kind' benefits in designing a total economic security package. The concern was expressed that the introduction of a BI scheme might increase the tendency to 'marketize' goods and services currently provided in the public sector, such as health care, home care for the disabled and elderly, publically provided child care, social housing, prescription drugs for the elderly and the poor, and the municipal water supply. It was argued that such moves towards privatization would undermine rather than augment economic justice.
The point was made in the Focus Groups that considerable resources and personnel are currently devoted to 'policing' programs such as social assistance ‚ determining the eligibility of applicants, enforcing compliance with rules, and catching those who receive benefits in error or as a result of fraudulent claims. This diverts program funds away from those in genuine need of economic support. It was argued that a universal BI scheme would be more efficient that existing means-tested programs, in that it would channel funds to beneficiaries rather than to bureaucratic enforcement of rules. At the same time, it was stressed that even with a BI in place, there would be a continuing need for social supports and human service programs to help people deal with substance abuse problems, parenting challenges, and disability. It was noted in this regard that a 'no strings attached' version of BI could potentially worsen problems for certain individuals who are coping with problems such as addiction, parenting difficulties, and poor budgeting skills (e.g. spending the money that would be received in a BI cheque on beer and cigarettes instead of on groceries for their children).
It was stressed in the Focus Groups that BI could especially benefit two groups in the population who experience a high degree of economic insecurity ‚ women and people with disabilities.
Mothers caring for young children, and women who are experiencing violence or abuse from their partner and who wish to leave the relationship, could be greatly assisted by BI. Particular emphasis was placed in the Focus Groups on how female single mothers living in poverty are being put under great pressure to take (typically 'bad') jobs, regardless of their circumstances and their children's needs. This 'labour-market-attachment-at-all-costs' policy of the Saskatchewan government, from the point of view of the Focus Groups, has placed single mothers and their children under great stress, and has not in fact increased either the mother's opportunities or the children's well-being. Such stress was perceived as actually worsening problems and leading to an even higher degree of social exclusion. An adequate and dependable BI program would obviously take pressure off a single mother to accept a job that would jeopardize her child's or her own best interests.
Focus Group members challenged by disabilities (including those which are intellectual, physical, and psychiatric in nature), and their advocates who also participated, strongly emphasized the need for better means of both economic support and labour market insertion. They cited the necessity of flexible employment arrangements that could accommodate a person's disability. They also spoke of employers and labour market policy makers moving beyond the "duty to accommodate" and embracing a "desire to include" when it comes to facilitating labour market access for persons with disabilities. Access to a BI would presumably provide a financial basis for non-standard patterns of employment (such as jobs with part-time or flexible hours) for a disabled person wanting to work for pay. BI would also indirectly benefit employers by expanding their pool of potential workers, in part through the elimination of 'welfare traps' in existing social assistance and disability benefits that claw back labour market earnings from beneficiaries.
The Focus Groups had interesting and thoughtful things to say about questions to do with political mobilization to implement BI ‚ such as how to build public support, how to bring politicians on board, and how to achieve policy and legislative outcomes on the long road towards some kind of universal and adequate BI program.
The observation was made that guaranteed annual income has been discussed and promoted in past decades by faith communities such as the United Church of Canada, by civil rights and poor people's movements in United States, and by the Macdonald Royal Commission in the 1980s. It was also pointed out that, despite these endorsements, the concept of GAI / BI is an unfamiliar one to Canadians in general. The importance of educating both the general public and young people in the school system was stressed, if we are to reach a broader and deeper understanding of BI and other social entitlements. It was also noted that newer Canadians may feel a somewhat weakened commitment to existing social programs, and may in fact be denied access to them.
Politicians were blamed for what was seen as a lack of courage in regard to even basic economic security measures, such as increasing social assistance rates that are very much below the poverty line. It was observed that governments frequently have to be embarrassed before they act. Focus group participants observed that there seems to be a lack of political will at present to work towards a BI policy. They argued that if politicians are to engage in future consultation with the public in regard to the potential for BI, this must be done in a sincere and genuine manner. There was considerable cynicism in the Focus Groups that government "consultation" is really an exercise in public relations, and that governments act in ways that have been previously decided without regard to the input or wishes of those who are consulted.
The point was made in the Focus Groups that BI is a concept that holds potential appeal across the political spectrum. The left may see it as a means for redistribution of wealth and as a social justice measure. The right may see it as a way of rationalizing and streamlining our current labyrinth of multiple, confusing, and expensive-to-administer income support programs.
Some Focus Group participants also made the point that BI was unlikely to be achieved without a certain level of "class consciousness" and a willingness to confront corporate complicity in perpetuating poverty. It was also suggested that enshrined legal guarantees, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the international level, and Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the national level, could help us move in the direction of a universal BI.
Finally, it was noted that work is currently being done at the National Anti-Poverty Organization to draw together various components of economic security (including existing, improved, or new income support programs) into a coherent and comprehensive package. In this sense, a concerted campaign at the national level for a 'patchwork quilt' BI may already be underway, and it may be unnecessary or even counter-productive to pursue BI as a new idea that requires independent campaigning.
The sixth theme discussed in the Focus Groups ‚ how to move the BI agenda forward in political terms ‚ is of course vital, if we are to begin to take steps towards a workable program, or tapestry of several programs, for a guaranteed adequate income in Canada. The participants in the Saskatchewan Focus Groups described above were generally willing to give the BI / GAI model serious consideration as a new approach to income security. In fact, the Groups provided some worthwhile practical suggestions in regard to moving a BI / GAI agenda forward, including the following:
The GAI / BI approach has been given serious consideration as a direction in social policy for Canada on various occasions in the past, as has been described above. There have been some recent indications that it is now an opportune time to move forward on a GAI / BI agenda in Canada. In early 2007, the Toronto Star ran a series of feature articles and editorials entitled the "War on Poverty." This series included an editorial on 29 January that argued "regardless of whether it is an objective or a program, the idea of a guaranteed income should be part of the debate on how to fight poverty. The Toronto Star series also included an article (Monsebratten, 2007) entitled "Guaranteed income, guaranteed dignity" that stated that "a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians" was "gaining momentum." On the political front, Senator Hugh Segal (a Conservative appointed to Senate by the previous Liberal government) has called for a guaranteed annual income for everyone in Canada (Segal, 2006). The leader of the Green Party of Canada, Elizabeth May, is personally in favour of a guaranteed annual income and has initiated discussion of the concept within her party (Delacourt, 2007). The National Council of Welfare (2007b, 13) reported results of its "Anti-Poverty and Income Security Questionnaire," to which a diverse range of over 5000 individuals and 400 organizations responded. This survey ranked "a guaranteed liveable income"(along with affordable housing, childcare and education and training) as "top actions that respondents thought could make a difference." There also seems to be growing awareness in Canada that Basic Income has been promoted and debated in many other countries, based on the author's participation in various social policy forums in different parts of the country.
As a potential future policy direction in Canada, GAI / BI would be a big step forward in mending our tattered social safety net (Mulvale, 2001, p. 139). The BI model of economic security takes into account the inability the current labour market in Canada, with its heavy reliance on labour-displacing information and communication technologies, and its high proportion of poorly paid and casualized jobs in the service sector, to generate a sufficient quantity of secure and decently paid employment for everyone in the workforce (Lerner et al, 1999). BI also gives monetary recognition to unpaid but socially necessary work that is carried out in the family, in voluntary service organizations, and in groups and movements struggling for social justice. BI would be especially beneficial for women, Aboriginal communities, persons with disabilities, and racialized and newly immigrated groups who face high levels of economic vulnerability. Finally, since BI has the effect of providing a 'floor' of universal economic security, it also provides an avenue for Canadian and other highly developed industrial economies to move beyond their addiction to unrestricted economic growth as the 'motor of prosperity.' This drive to constantly expand economic activity and consumption has created several potentially catastrophic problems of environmental sustainability.
Based on all of these circumstances and arguments, it may be time to go work towards the achievement of a new GAI / BI model of enhanced social welfare and universal economic security in Canada. The economic and ecological vulnerabilities that we currently face demand new ideas and bold approaches.
Biographical Note: Dr. Jim Mulvale is a faculty member and Department Head in Justice Studies at the University of Regina. He teaches courses on theories of social justice and work and economic security. His research interests include new models of income security and First Nations' perspectives on justice and human rights. He is the author of a book entitled Reimagining Social Welfare: Beyond the Keynesian Welfare State (Garamond Press, 2001). He holds a Master of Social Work degree from Carleton University, and a PhD in Sociology from McMaster University. He has over twelve years of experience in community development in the fields of developmental disability and community mental health, and is a Registered Social Worker in the province of Saskatchewan.