Fighting Poverty With Politics
Canada’s politicians have increased efforts of open dialogue on tackling poverty and low/high class pay gap on our home soil. As of May, 2016, implementing a basic annual income has officially been tabled by the Liberal government after a delegates convention voted in favor of providing a basic annual income in Canada. Although, the process of a policy becoming law is a lengthy and complex procedure, and it is unlikely that we will see basic income as a standard anytime soon. Steps to eradicating poverty are far and few, even impossible — but strives to reduce the rich vs. poor gap are a plausibility.
Keywords: policy, annual income, poverty, federal government, provincial government, social model, statistics, marginalized.
Canadians’ pride themselves in being the pinnacle example of social tolerance and progressive social movements in North America. Unlike our southern neighbors, Canada is different in the social context and in the political structure that implements social programs. The structure of Canada’s institutions work by way of a federal division of powers, reducing power from the federal level to the provincial to the municipal level. Legislation and jurisdiction is utilized in all levels, however the federal government retains the most sovereign authority. In relation to poverty in Canada, all you need know is that Canada’s political system is entrenched with a multi-tier system for implementing policy. It is a lengthy process riddled with mind-boggling discussion and debate.
Moved by the Liberal Party of Canada (Manitoba is in brackets here on the official website), a policy was passed under P-05. Or simply titled Poverty Reduction: Minimum Income. It is not a set in stone law, only a bill on the table. The bill is meant to encourage dialogue to “develop a poverty reduction strategy aimed as providing a minimum guaranteed income.” Once more negotiations take place and the bill is passed through Ottawa’s Parliament, is will be the final say of the senate to ‘okay’ any creation of a basic annual income. In basic terminology, political policy must first be passed as a condensed resolution before being concrete law. This process takes time, but if the goal is to create long-term solutions to a vastly negative problem in society (such as poverty), the solution will be more complex. In the book “Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems” authors Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl describe this as the third-generation implementation theory.
Political policy is the last thing most people want to concern themselves with. “That’s all swell and dandy, helping the poor,” they may say, “but what does this mean for me, a hardworking, everyday Canadian who pays my taxes?” There is a general stigma that poverty is not a real issue in Canada, perpetuated with vague lines for what we understand ‘poverty’ to be. Certainly a well-accomplished, high income university student would have a different understanding of the parameters of poverty then a single mother working as a social worker for recovering drug addicts would. Keep in mind, it is impossible to quantify the meaning of ‘living in poverty in Canada’ to an exact statistical variable. As indicated by the Canadian Government: “In Canada, the federal government has endorsed no official measurement of poverty.” There are some patterns that do emerge in the statistical data, but nothing is mutually exclusive in understanding poverty — an intrinsically social phenomena. Examining the statistics provided by Canada Without Poverty, it is apparent that marginalized groups are the most likely to be living in poverty. Now, we can set about defining marginalized, however being marginalized does not provide sufficient means for being included into the basic annual income program. The bill itself will be about creating a basic annual income, if these conditions are set to those living in poverty, or Canadians as a whole regardless of income, is not outlined in the bill. Basic income in its original definition extends to every citizen, without condition or exception. This is an aspect Ottawa and the Federal government will need to define and establish in the future.
As the saying goes, those at the lowest level of a developed nation still have it better than those in developing nations. What will a basic annual income achieve? Reducing the gap between the rich and the poor is an after effect, allowing those in disadvantaged situations to now rely on steady income to up their conditions in life. We should acknowledge that Ottawa’s bill is to tackle poverty (this is indicated in the rationale), which is the strongest case for justifying a basic annual income.
The creation of a basic annual income as a principle is not without criticisms. Most apparent, a basic income would deter the need to enter the workforce. As Eric Reguly from The Globe and Mail explains in the best way, “economies might not reinvent themselves if millions of people are paid not to work”. There are also practical considerations to address. How would this tie in with the Pension Plan, the already numerous social programs, and employment insurance? Would Canadians’ gain annual income, only to lose their pensions? It is unlikely that this will occur, but these are all valid considerations. Canada is limited in the money it can throw around to pay for social programs.
The passing of the bill in no way signifies any political action will be taken. If you are still unconvinced for the benefits of a basic annual income and poverty reduction, Thomas More’s Utopia (where the concept was originally coined), may offer some deeper reflection. If not that, then statistics on “the reality of poverty in Canada” would be a good start before pondering for solutions. The problem with fighting poverty is not in the incapability, it is in misunderstanding on solutions and situations, encompassed in complexities and ambiguous ethical consideration, that cannot be fully expressed in a mere few minutes.. At the very least, Canadian’s world-wide claim of being a free and loving nation does not give us the luxury of turning a blind eye to ignorance as 1 in every 7 Canadians currently lives in poverty, many of which are children (approx. 500,000 in 4 million). It is a cruel reality that we need to face as a developed nation keen on social justice.
