The goals of the Workshop were described in the invitation to participants:

"The purpose of the BEST Workshop is to convene a group of people who are able and motivated to formulate and critique alternative ways to ensure basic economic security for all Canadians in the midst of turbulent technological change and economic globalization. One possible outcome is the establishment of an informal Economic Security Research Network to address the relevant issues."

[The complete invitation, list of participants and detailed notes on the brainstorming sessions are annexed to this report]

Arthur Cordell's brief introduction stressed the differences between the new post-industrial knowledge economy and the Fordist model to which we had become accustomed. Ensuring basic economic security (BES) in post-industrial Canada poses new challenges, typified by calls from employers for 'just-in-time' employees, often characterized as a 'flexible' workforce.

It is unlikely that BES will be accepted or adopted simply because it is the more "logical" way to go. BES is a cross-cutting issue and involves a lot of "hot button" items. It is these items that make discussion of BES so difficult. People will argue and debate BES, but not on its merits. Rather BES is often a proxy for the other issues that people seem unwilling to address directly. In this respect BES is similar to other large public policy "hot button" issues.

Two that come to mind are the de-criminalization of drugs and the question of physician assisted suicide or "dying with dignity". Most people are aware of the issues and there is discussion pro or con in the press, but it is difficult to get reasoned discussion because of the associated ethical/moral/value issues.

BES is likely to be a burning, but back-burner, issue until some set of conditions emerges that pushes it to the front burner. What are those conditions and can we anticipate them?

The Workshop began with two brainstorming sessions facilitated by Mike McCracken

Participants first addressed the question of what problems and issues are associated with planning for basic economic security (BES) in Canada. They flagged the following problem areas.

A 'business as usual' perspective on the part of politicians that ignores changes in the nature of work in the wake of globalization and rapid technological innovation;

A dominant cultural outlook that sees full employment as the only answer to providing basic economic security for Canadians;

Reluctance to consider innovative approaches to ensuring BES, which are rejected as 'utopian' after little or no discussion;

Lack of a Canadian forum or process in which to articulate issues and debate about a variety of ways to provide BES so that there could be movement toward political consensus

No international links to learn from others' experiences

Need to discuss and debate boundaries between jobs, work, socially-valued activities, 'serious leisure', reproduction -- and where income should link in

Need to discuss what should be the basis for determining income in the context of what we value in our society

Need a better understanding of the current relationship between the market and economic security for individuals, families and communities so can determine what are suitable activities for the market and what must be accomplished with non-market mechanisms

Taking some form of Basic Income (BI) as an example of an alternative way of distributing income, design issues include level of income, universality or not, conditionality or not, individuals or families as recipients, optimal mix of cash and other supports such as affordable housing, BI taxable or not, and means of funding.

In the second round of brainstorming, participants offered ideas on how best to address these problems and issues. The suggestions included:

Initiate multi-disciplinary research, including review of previous experiments with ensuring BES and new pilot projects implementing a variety of approaches

Create networks and web sites to initiate a Canadian process and forum that could become part of the international network looking at alternative ways of ensuring BES

Construct a measure to determine what level of income and other supports would constitute a 'decent standard of living' in Canada, drawing on UN human rights documents

Offer an example of a Basic Income (BI) for public discussion and debate: every adult receives ~$12,000 annually (= 40 hours per week at minimum wage for 52 weeks)

Design issues with BI as an example:

• design and implement it through an open, community-based process
• move gradually to universality by expanding categories for income support from children and old people to others;
• consider a limited duration income support (5 years, 20 years) that could be used when people chose to;
• develop a way of tying BI to some publicly agreed-upon engagement in society, because long-term change in values and education would be required to gain public support for an unconditional BI
• design BI as a package of needed change--dollars + in-kind + engagement + self- esteem + reduction in insecurity + culture improvement -- allowing maintenance of social cohesion and providing the secure underpinning of a 'flexible' workforce
• bring BI in gradually in the context of building healthy communities, with changes in many other institutions (e.g., education) taking place at the same time.

The afternoon discussion considered a number of possible items and points concerning the research agenda. Key points included:

Work should be multi-disciplinary - economic social, political, etc.

Links of income to impacts on health, education and crime should be detailed, since a BI could help mitigate some of the adverse impacts.

What are the numbers for current income support? The combination of federal, provincial, and local support in the form of transfers, tax expenditures, subsidized activities, etc. should be detailed, along with their incidence by age, sex, and family structure.

There are research issues about possible funding mechanisms that might link to the "new economy". (Examples include the Tobin tax, the bit tax)

Who are the "homeless"? And why are they "homeless"? Is it income, mental illness, alcoholism, social estrangement?

Can the concept of "economic security" be developed in a way that distinguishes it from "labour market security"?

What shows up in a macro simulation of a BI?

For purposes of better understanding the various dimensions of a BI, the beginnings of a prototype based on the Workshop discussions might look like the following:

• Conditional on engagement, broadly defined. Otherwise universal to all citizens
• Immigrants to be handled separately. Perhaps first three years under a separate program with training in language, cultural adaptation, etc. as part of a program. After three years immigrants expected to become citizens. If not, then not eligible for BI.
• Adequate level for meaningful choices - $12,000 per person, age 18 or over, independent of family status. Note that this provides an incentive for people to form a "family", but not necessarily to marry.
• Children - covered by a BI payment to the mother (or person responsible for them) equal to the square root of ( the number of children in the family/ the number of adults in family ) * $12,000) in addition to their basic adult payments. Note that if a father leaves a family unit, then there is a partial increase in the payment to the mother.
• Taxable, with relatively low rate and large tax credits if this is the only source of income. Or non-taxable, but personal income tax system simplified to eliminate personal credits, apply tax from first dollar of earned income.
• Current transfer payments would be eliminated, including SA, UI, OAS/GIS, child tax credits, GST credits, etc. Substantial reduction in RRSPs and RPP tax exemptions would be appropriate, since people would have $12,000 per year in income for life.
• CPP/QPP would remain in place since it is tied to work history and contributory payments.

A discussion of the "politics" of a basic income or basic economic security arrived at the following conclusions:

• Expanding BI/NIT with the tax system through "targeted" and "income-tested" components is currently popular, For example, the US earned income tax credit was supported by both democrats and republicans.
• Think about building coalitions that would support a BI. Kids, elderly, women with children people with elder care or home care responsibilities
• Practical matter: don't call it GAI or BI - instead see the process as one of introduction of economic security by "stealth".
• Examine wage polarization, disappearing middle, homelessness - and compare internationally.
• Recognize that the current system has its dysfunctionalities - don't accept that it is the "gold standard".
• "Fairness" is too soft an approach. In the 30s there was at least hope. Today too many don't see that possibility. How to focus the anger? How to mobilize - need to target particular groups in need and those who would join a coalition!

The meeting closed with an agreement on the following "next steps":

1. A report of the day to be distributed to all participants and those who indicated an interest in being there but who were unable to make it.

2. Copies of articles on basic income to be sent to those who did not receive them but who are interested in more information.

3. The current activities should be placed in the context of a "continuing conversation in Canada" about BI. Some key milestones include:

• Bourassa said "no" to constitutional reform in 1971, based on an unwillingness by the federal government to consider a GAI.
• Macdonald Commission in early 80s recommended a GAI.
• Right-wing groups pushed the idea as a vehicle to reduce the size and influence of government programs, with a benefit sufficient for survival only.
• Discussions of a "social wage" and government being an employer of last resort continue as a possible approach to high unemployment.

4. A Canadian web site with reference to BI should be developed with links to international sites as well. Participants are urged to send contributions to it, once established.

5. Reference should be made to web sites maintained by HRDC and by the Policy Research Secretariat of the PCO (see policyresearch.gc.ca)

6. An exercise that attempts to develop scenarios that would be consistent with a BI implementation might be useful for conveying the promises and problems that are possible.

Basic Economic Security Today (BEST) Workshop Ottawa, June 3, 1998

"The purpose of the BEST Workshop is to convene a group of people who are able and motivated to formulate and critique alternative ways to ensure basic economic security for all Canadians in the midst of turbulent technological change and economic globalization. One possible outcome is the establishment of an informal Economic Security Research Network to address the relevant issues."

We continue to see fundamental changes in the role of paid employment as a way of providing income in Canada. If 'jobless growth' and demands for a 'flexible' workforce are to be prominent features of our economy into the 21st century, then there is an urgent need to explore new ways of distributing wealth, particularly the wealth generated by job-depleting information technologies and corporate re-structuring. Such 'precautionary' planning will serve as insurance against the destructive effects on consumer demand and social cohesion that would result from increasing un- and under-employment.

The foundational assumption of the BEST Workshop is that Canadian society can remain peaceful and productive in these changing conditions only if economic security--the 'glue' that creates social cohesion--is assured for all Canadians. This initial BEST session will bring together a diverse small group of concerned people to discuss what policy options should be explored and how they might be evaluated. We believe that while a policy of ensuring basic economic security is clearly in the enlightened self-interest of Canadians, it can also be seen as the preferred way for our economy and society to evolve.

Workshop participants will address such substantive questions as: What do we do if there are no jobs for significant numbers? What do we do for pockets of people without incomes today? (rural, reserve, North, within cities). We want to get ideas on the table for what needs to be done and how to do it. We want to spell out both the communication issues and the research issues. The latter concern such questions as: What level of resources is required to ensure basic economic security? How can these resources be provided? On what basis and by what means should these resources be distributed? Our educational system prepares students for one kind of world--the world of paid employment. What changes should be considered when students graduate to a world of temp agencies and contract jobs, or no jobs at all?

We would hope to adopt a general definition of "basic economic security" that stresses secure access to the necessities of life and to whatever additional resources are required for individuals and families to participate fully in their communities. The very generality of such a definition should encourage consideration of a range of policy options.

There is now widespread recognition of the sea changes taking place in how work is allocated and rewarded in the world, and many believe that the chances of returning to 'business as usual' (that is, secure, adequately-waged full employment or the traditional welfare state) are quite slim. The BEST Workshop addresses the need to begin a serious Canadian dialogue about alternative ways of providing basic economic security to all of our citizens in the event that negative scenarios materialize.

Arguably, Canada is in an excellent position to design a workable model for global action in response to this fundamental challenge. While not everyone thinks events are moving inexorably toward widespread structural un- and under-employment, it seems only wise to plan for such a possibility. We hope you will join us in this effort."

* attended Workshop on June 3, others indicated interest

*Sally Lerner, University of Waterloo
519-888-4567 x3060, lerner@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca

*Mike McCracken, Informetrica Limited
238-4831, mccracken@informetrica.com

*Arthur Cordell, Industry Canada
990-3545, cordell.arthur@ic.gc.ca

Rod Dobell, School of Public Administration
University of Victoria
Victoria BC V8W 2Y2
rdobell@hsd.uvic.ca

Allen Moscovitch, School of Social Work, Carleton U.
Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6
520-5601, home 234-8508 Allen_Moscovitch@carleton.ca

Lars Osberg, Dalhousie U.
Philip Marigan, UQAM

*J. Stewart Wells
Assistant Chief Statistician
Statistics Canada
951-9760, wellste@statcan.ca

*John Myles, Statistics Canada
jmyles@coss.fsu.edu

*Kathy Campbell - DIAND
CampbellK@inac.gc.ca

*Effie Panousous, PCO
995-3655 995-6006fax
effieP@ccmd-ccg.gc.ca

Honourable Sister Peggy Butts (Senator)
943-0695 943-0697fax

Al Zeesman, HRDC (interested, please keep informed)
994-3039

*Andrew Jackson, CLC
ajackson@clc-ctc.ca

*Jim Stanford, CAW
stanford@web.net

Arlene Wortsman, CLMPC
234-0505 x229, clmpc@magi.com

Julie White, CEP

David Ross, CCSD
236-8977, ross@ccsd.ca

Ken Battle or Sherri Torjman, Caledon Institute
caledon@istar.ca 729-3340

*Bruce Campbell, Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives
brucec@policyalternatives.ca 563-1341 233-1458fax

*Andrew Sharpe, CSLS
csls@csls.ca

Mark Hudson, 32 Hour Week Coalition in Toronto
freetime@web.net

Armine Yalnizyan, Social Planning Council (Toronto)
ayal@interlog.com

Susan Riley, columnist

Richard Shillington, TrisStar Services (interested)

Russell Robinson, former ADM Finance and NHW

*Lynn Jamieson, former DG, HRDC re Working Time, now working on Aboriginal issues, ljamies@netcom.ca

Lynn Toupin, National Voluntary Organization
238-1591 (Al Hatton)

Michael Mendelssohn ,Caledon Institute (Toronto)
mmmendelsm@inforamp.net 416-925-0024

The Workshop began with two brainstorming sessions facilitated by Mike McCracken.

Initially participants were asked to offer their ideas about what problems and issues are associated with planning for basic economic security (BES) in Canada.

Most generally, it was noted that the dominant cultural view of full employment as "the answer" needs debate and can be a barrier to change. In order to bring about institutional change there must be a culture change/shift in values on the part of both the political leadership and society at large. Too many people are using ideas bound to today's 'business as usual' views as they seek solutions to the economic insecurity created by changes in the nature of work in the wake of globalization and rapid technological change. Can 'utopian' thinking about providing BES stimulate politicians and the public to develop innovative initiatives? One example would be some form of Basic Income (BI) [that is, Guaranteed Annual Income, Citizen's Wage, Social Wage, etc.], and much of the subsequent Workshop discussion took this example as its focus.

Three broad problem/issue areas regarding BI as an approach to BES were identified: Process, 'Fit' in Canadian Society, and Design.

Where can Canadians talk about ways to provide basic economic security (BES)?

There is no common conversational space where discussion can take place. Therefore the discussion doesn't take off. What is the best way to pull different threads together to articulate issues clearly and thus "to make it accessible"?

A forum is needed to obtain respect for different ideas, to debate alternatives to the dominant culture. For example, what would make Basic Income a respectable topic for discussion?

What would be the political basis for the establishment of a BI scheme? To move toward political consensus, there would need to be discussion of the many issues around what constitutes an equitable distribution of income, especially in this neoliberal age.

How could we get an international conversation going? What has been the experience with promoting discussion of BES/BI in other countries?

Society's boundaries (job/work/social participation)

Need to discuss and debate boundaries between jobs, work, social activity, 'serious leisure', reproduction. Where do we/should we link in income? This involves deciding what is to be "paid" work (activity), what is a job?

What should be the basis for determining income? What do we value in our society?

How do cultural norms--about the 'work ethic', for example--and beliefs that "the devil finds work for idle hands" influence thinking about these questions?

"There's so much that needs to be done. Why not put people to work doing it, rather than paying them to do nothing."

"Do we need a BI if we have full employment?"

"In a society of warriors or hunters, I would starve. In our society, employability depends on the ability to manipulate symbols. Yet we have an illiteracy rate of 18%."

"What kind of society do we want?"

It was noted that a vision is needed of what skills and contributions should be expected from members of Canadian society.

The market and economic security

We need a better understanding of the relationship between the market and economic security for individuals, families and communities.

People are working harder, more people are in the labour market, productivity is higher thanks to technology. Yet living standards are declining. Why is the labour market not providing basic economic security?

To what extent can we depend on market mechanisms? What are suitable activities for the market?

Can we divorce the distribution of income from the market in such a radical way (as BI) - given the current context of attacks on the welfare system?

One way to share the gains of productivity is to tax in order to get funds to support non-market paid jobs (i.e. public and third sector). A BI would undermine the fiscal basis for this. Does a BI presuppose that voluntary labour will replace the non market sector

Should we provide a guaranteed annual "job" or a BI?

Improving choices

Many women argue that it is the growth of paid work that has provided their real choices. If there aren't jobs for all, would a BI expand real choices for women?

Would a BI mean more choices for workers in general?

What is BES? The major design issues are:

Level of BES./BI and thus cost?

Universality?

Individual or Family?

Conditionality?

Mix of cash and other social supports

Funding

Finding the right level of BES - high enough to be above poverty and still feasible

Cost of living in various regions should be considered. How to avoid it being or becoming guaranteed annual poverty?

"Profit-seeking private employers require a labour force that is in some way "desperate", so that they can hire suitably productive labour at a profitable low wage. A decent basic income would interfere with this imperative and thus undermine capitalism."

Issues of whether/how BES/BI should be universally guaranteed or not, and whether the individual or the family is the recipient

Need to consider various approaches (e.g. BI, Negative Income Tax) as well as costs and benefits or targeting vs. non-targeting.

The non-employable: A key problem facing us, irrespective of employment levels, is provision for the non-employable (examples include mentally disabled on the streets, people who suffer from severe substance abuse.

Issue of whether/how a BI could or should be conditional or unconditional

If conditional, how to avoid the problems around workfare, including finding useful, meaningful work without taking paying jobs from others

If unconditional, how to ensure opportunities for all to be societally engaged rather than excluded?

How to get balance between cash (BI) and other supports (affordable housing, medical care, education) which would be the context for BI?

Question of what broader social context should be part of the thinking about Basic Economic Security (e.g. housing, education, medical care)

BI should be considered as the cash component of a comprehensive, socially-embedded program of economic security.

How would BES/BI be funded?

How can it be funded in a non-distorting and reasonable way?

What are the costs of a given scheme? And who pays for it, the working poor?

How to insure that there will be sufficient redistribution of income to make a BES program viable - there are issues of power and mobile capital.

In the second brainstorming session, participants were asked to offer their ideas on how best to address the problems and issues they had raised. Ideas were wide-ranging, covering process, design, and implementation dimensions.

Research. Establish a multi-disciplinary government research base to engage in 'out-of-the-box' thinking on these issues and to review HRDC and MINCOME experiments for possible lessons

Do pilot projects. Pick a group and do it - provide an unconditional, universal payment to everyone in Nunavut or for those previously involved in TAGS in NFLD. Option to try it on some reserves?

"We need to suspend disbelief for the moment and ask people to engage in 'intellectual play'."

Process in Canada. Build links and web sites in Canada. Initiate a process in Canada and link it to international groups and efforts such as European (BIEN), UK (Citizens Income), NZ (UBI) and other groups.

How to develop and support a Canadian network? By means of a grass roots broad-based education/consultation process to conceptualize the issue of economic security and how it can be done. Convey the notion that if there is the popular and political will, it is achievable.

"Public discussion of the "design" [of a BES/BI program] has to achieve some level of general acceptance. This implies lots of lobbying and other forms of rude behavior."

Level of Benefit? Provide every adult with a basic income = 40 hours per week at minimum wage for 52 weeks, or about $12,000.

Some sort of measure should be constructed to determine what should be the level, i.e. quantify concepts of "decent standards of living", etc. Benchmark norms and standards to be found in UN Declaration of Human Rights and Covenants. Issue of whether a universal basic income would be taxable needs to be addressed. .

Universality? Can be shown that universality has benefits compared with targeting - e.g. more likely not to be voted out, less bureaucracy

Canada now has a "selective" rather than "universal" GAI [BI], i.e. for old people to families with kids. A design strategy that would facilitate the process would be to expand the categories of "selectivity" rather than trying to go to "universality" in one step.

Possibility of limited duration (5 years, 20 years) - people would have choices on when to use it.

Individual or family? Individual protects autonomy of individual. Age levels certainly debatable. The equivalence scales for a basic income should be well thought out for unattached individuals versus couples and for children.

Key issue of whether immigrants would be immediately eligible for BES/BI. Perhaps treat separately as is now done.

Conditionality? Payment should be related (tied) to some sort of activity that the "process" has succeeded in presenting as useful, be conditional on some engagement in society

Conditional or not? Unconditional avoids coercive measures and costs, as well as enormous problems re "workfare".

Long-term societal change in values, and in education's expectations would be needed to support the effectiveness of unconditional BES/BI.

Package of change needed. Dollars + in-kind + engagement + self esteem + reduction in insecurity + culture improvement. All of these elements are part of Basic Economic Security (BES)

Open, community based process.

Should be brought in gradually with changes in many other institutions at the same time. For example, paralleling a change in the way education takes place and why

BES/BI should be introduced in the context of building healthy communities. Cross-subsidization is at the heart of community. A society with real choice and education on how to choose!

"In the short run there may be heightened antagonisms among the various classes. In the long run - if successful - a mellower, more compassionate and considerate society, including fewer lawyers."

Links | | UBINZ | | GeoCities