I was not a fan of Brian Mulroney when he was Canada's Prime Minister (1984 -93) for a number of reasons, not the least of which was his blarney-ful duet with Ronald Reagan. Except that I did admire his environmental record which eventually resulted in being designated Canada's "greenest" PM. Imagine, a Conservative being progressive in environmental policy because it might conserve what is vital to our economic wellbeing?
Now I see that Mulroney has offered a video with his agenda for "building back better" following the pandemic which includes what he terms Universal Basic Income or UBI. He expresses his feeling that this makes sense for the disadvantaged who are struggling to get by in our relatively wealthy society, including those who lost a lot during the past two years. His outlook is not unlike that of another Progressive Conservative, Hugh Segal, author of Bootstraps Need Boots: One Tory’s Lonely Fight to End Poverty in Canada. I confess that my view of Mulroney has been shaken up. https://twitter.com/i/status/1478394168603033606
As it happens I recently chatted with a retired guy at the gym who met with a local politician about the plight of his disabled son who is attempting to live on $17,000. His parents supplement his income because he would be impoverished otherwise. When I asked how the meeting had gone he shook his head in frustration. What we need, he said, is a guaranteed income for those who need it most.
I agreed and mentioned that the United Church supports what we term Guaranteed Livable Income. I told him that son Isaac, who is a UCC minister is involved in that initiative.
Of course, we did have a form of GLI during COVID with supplements for those who lost work, but as the economy has recovered those are disappearing. And it seemed that the GLI pilot project in Ontario was off to promising start before Ford and the Regressive Conservatives came to power and killed it.
Isn't it time we woke up to Segal's premise that people do want to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but we have to make sure that they have boots in the first place? I do believe that this is a biblical imperative as well, and that Christ's call to compassion can guide us.
3 comments:
Hugh Segal also wrote a book on the two fundamental freedoms: freedom from want and freedom from fear.
Criticisms of GLI are laughable if they weren't so tragic. Governments don't mind spending billions through tax expenditures (ie. deductions otherwise payable as taxes) to affluent interests. The result: offshore investments, tax havens, etc. Give that money to local populations and guess what? They spend it locally and feed the local economy. What a concept!
We could start by using the existing tax system and make the personal deductions refundable as an absolute (admittedly inadequate) income basement and supplement up from there to provide an income floor that sustains life.
This type of income security plus increased supply of truly affordable housing would likely eliminate 80-90% of homelessness on our streets. What would be looking at? If $600/mo rents represent 30% of income that's $2,000/mo. Hello! Let's make this work!
In 2016 the former Liberal government in Ontario had a Basic Income Pilot Project running in a sample of communities in Ontario. The subsequent Conservative government ended it before the Project's time was up and the conclusive data would have been collected. What a lost opportunity that was. Kathy B.
Thanks, Kathy and Frank, for these thoughtful responses. I could combine the two for a worthwhile blog entry. I feel that the cancellation of the Pilot Project was just plain stupid, and a lost opportunity. And Frank, your involvement with the Poverty Roundtable locally was invaluable and again, the loss of funding silenced an important voice.
Post a Comment