It's a great letter, but probably, in the opinion of the editor, too
complicated for the average Citizen reader .
Ed Weick
Visit my rebuilt website at:
http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/
> 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
>
>
