Some FWers may be interested in the following.
I should add that the letter was not, or at least has not
yet, been published.
Editor
The Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Sir,
The recent report (Ottawa Citizen, page 1, Saturday Dec. 9)
that the Prime Minister is interested in a Guaranteed Annual
Income reminds me of a suggestion put forward by the former
E.R.Olson, Q.C. when he was Associate Deputy Minister
(Social Policy) in the Department of Justice in the Trudeau
era. It strikes me that, in today's circumstances, the Prime
Minister might welcome the suggestion.
Mr. Olson foresaw nothing but trouble -- mean-mindedness in
the population and federal provincial tensions -- in any
discussion of the guaranteed income as an element of social
policy. We would, he thought, just be driving ourselves back
to the discredited discussions about who were the
"deserving" poor and what level of guaranteed income the
country could "afford."
He proposed shifting the entire discussion of a guaranteed
income out of the context of social policy, where the focus
is on the neediness of recipients. (Social policy is the
very context in which the Prime Minister seems to be
proposing to situate the discussion.) Mr. Olson proposed the
discussion be located instead in political context where the
focus would be on the needs of the nation.
No democracy can function well without the full
participation of all its citizens. An informed and effective
and responsible electorate is the sine qua non to
maintaining our democracy and quality of life. We are all
short-changed when some members of the society are
disenfranchised -- not by having no vote but by being unable
to exercise the responsibilities of citizenship that go with
having the vote.
The question then becomes not "how much will a guaranteed
income cost?" but "what is the cost of putting our political
future at risk?
I am reminded of this question when I see the dramatic
disparities in the circumstances of Canada's children and
think about their future together as adult citizens. The
difficulty faced by many of today's families in making their
voices heard, let alone sharing in the activities that make
a democracy work, is apparent. I think of it too when I hear
about people with adequate income being bored or flippant
about politics, equating it with the activities merely of
the political parties when it is in fact a much deeper and
more significant institution, a remarkable process for
peaceful change that is deserving of our attention and
respect and thoughtful participation.
A visible and guaranteed income, arriving in our mailboxes
(a negative income tax will never do: it is far too arcane)
might be a good reminder to all of us. The net cost to the
country of recirculating a certain amount of income in order
to recategorize it is minimal, and could yield many
benefits. The question becomes "Can we afford not to invest
in a universal guaranteed annual income?"
Mr. Olson thus saw a guaranteed income delivered in a
political context as an extension of our enfranchisement as
citizens -- a way of making our vote and political
participation more likely and thus helping to guarantee our
future. He proposed that such a guaranteed income be called
"the Canada Franchise."
My own view is that this is an excellent suggestion, that
such a strengthening of the effectiveness of democratic
enfranchisement would constitute a major step forward in the
long history of the development of democracy. The Canada
Franchise would constitute a memorable legacy for Mr.
Chretien to leave to Canadians and would set an example for
all democratic nations.
Yours sincerely,
Gail Ward Stewart
December 12, 2000
