An NDP advocate org is suggesting Universal Basic Income was somehow first introduced into the Canadian political conversation by the NDP. But that’s not the case at all. The first time I heard any public NDP discussion about UBI was when it was brought forward by NDP leadership candidate Guy Caron. Who didn’t win. At that time UBI was *not* NDP policy. Is it now? 👀
It certainly wasn’t NDP policy during the 2019 federal election. 🌻 Only Green Party of Canada candidates were actively advocating for UBI in 2019.
As they’ve done for years. I always thought the strongest resistance to NDP UBI were Unions worried they would become redundant if workers didn’t need to work.
🌻The GPC version of UBI is called Guaranteed Livable Income or #GLI. The idea is to provide not just a bare basic income, but enough to live reasonably on. (Like CERB.)
The GPC’s GLI wouldn’t just eliminate poverty. Nor would it be only a temporary means to allow the most vulnerable to stay home without during a pandemic. GLI would do much more than fill the economic gap left by ever increasing elimination of jobs by Artificial Intelligence (AI) automation.
GLI will provide the economic means that will free Canadians up so we can experiment while still feeding our families. Some of us will innovate and invent. Others will create music or sculpture or books or paintings or movies or games. Some will volunteer for the causes we find worthy. Many will be able to concentrate on education or take the time we needed to raise children. Those who work for others will be better positioned to achieve equity. Social workers won’t need to police the poor, and will finally be able to practice social work.
The one thing we have learned from the growing number of UBI studies and pilot programs from around the world is that Basic Income won’t turn us into a nation of lazy bums. People will work because we want to work. We need to work — it’s in our DNA.
Basic Income— especially if it’s a GLI— means we won’t have to work for other people, doing mindless soul sucking work better done by machines, for companies whose executives will loot our pension funds before driving the company into bankruptcy on the eve of our retirement.
GLI will free Canadians to follow our dreams.
It’s part of the excellent suite of social programs the Greens campaigned on way back in 2015. Programs like Universal Pharmacare.
The Mincome Basic Income Pilot Program was a joint effort by the federal Liberals under Pierre Trudeau and Ed Schreyer’s Manitoba NDP. Unfortunately both of those governments fell, as often happens under our First Past The Post winner-take-all voting systems, and the pilot project was allowed to finish, but neither of the succeeding federal or provincial Progressive Conservative parties cared to do anything with the data, so much like Indiana Jones’ Lost Ark it was packed off to a warehouse to be forgotten.
And none of the succeeding majority federal Liberal governments (1980, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2015) or Manitoba majority NDP governments (1981, 1986, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011) ever considered even looking at, much less implementing even a modest Basic Income like Mincome.)
In a last ditch effort to appear progressive to stave off losing power, the Ontario Liberals put forward their own #BasicIncome pilot program designed to continue into the next electoral term. However the Ontario Greens pointed out the OLP’s pre-election budget failed to provide funding to continue the pilot, much less implement it.
The other parties often shy away from policies they are afraid they can’t sell, especially if other parties have been associated with them.
Only the Green Party consistently champions basic income policy. Not because it’s politically expedient, but because it is the right thing to do.
As Annamie Paul says, the Green Party is the Party of Daring.
#COVID19 Changes Everything
Arguments against UBI suggested such a policy was too expensive, or that it would transform Canadians into lazy bums who would not work.
Both of those arguments were thoroughly debunked by the #CERB (Canadian Emergency Response Benefit) which provided weekly payments of $500 a week to enable people to stay home during the height of the pandemic. The program demonstrated that political will was the only real barrier to funding thus basic Income program, and it quickly became clear that CERB benefuciaries couldn’t wait to get back to work.
It is true that Mr Singh advocated for the expansion of #CERB, so if could function as a UBI. But his initial caveat was that his recommendation was only for a temporary emergency measure.
So we are happy to see the positive response to CERB has helped the NDP join us in advocacy for a truly Universal Basic Income for all Canadians.
We’re always happy to see other parties adopt Green policies addressing problems that require equitable solutions.
An excellent tool to keep track of whether or not the Trudeau Government is fulfilling the promises made in its election platform is the non-partisan collaborative citizen initiative website called the “TrudeauMeter.” We are reminded Trudeaumeter On the use of Omnibus Bills: Parliament: “Change the House of Commons Standing Orders to end practice of using inappropriate omnibus bills to reduce…
An excellent tool to keep track of whether or not the Trudeau Government is fulfilling the promises made in its election platform is the non-partisan collaborative citizen initiative website called the “TrudeauMeter.” We are reminded Trudeaumeter On the use of Omnibus Bills: Parliament: “Change the House of Commons Standing Orders to end practice of using inappropriate omnibus bills to reduce…
An excellent tool to keep track of whether or not the Trudeau Government is fulfilling the promises made in its election platform is the non-partisan collaborative citizen initiative website called the “TrudeauMeter.” We are reminded
“Change the House of Commons Standing Orders to end practice of using inappropriate omnibus bills to reduce scrutiny of legislative measures.”
As it happens (although the Trudeaumeter hasn’t caught up as of this writing. But far from keeping this promise, the Trudeau Government has chosen to use an inappropriate omnibus bill to change the House of Commons Standing Orders to reduce what little power opposition parties in phony majority governments (such as Mr. Trudeau’s Government which he likes so much he’s disavowed his clear electoral reform promise to replace our unfair winner-take-all voting system).
“We’re filibustering to protect the right to filibuster. Who would have thought it would be this government, under this prime minister” to try to use its majority to make changes to the Standing Orders without all-party backing, he said. “It’s not your House… we have rights, too.”
Rather than making Parliament more transparent, this is yet another attempt to make it more efficient for a party with a phony majority to undemocratically impose its will on our nation. Promising one thing and not doing it is bad enough, doing the opposite of what you’ve promised is unacceptable. In a democracy, that is.
Although CPAC is not covering this, @Kady is LiveTweeting, so Canadians can follow along and watch this unfold…
The all-party committee on electoral reform (ERRÉ) has just finished four months of expert and public consultations. They will make their recommendation to Government by December 1st.
Of the ERRÉ witnesses with a position on voting systems, 88% recommended Proportional Representation. This reinforces the findings from decades of research from around the world and of 13 previous electoral reform processes in Canada, including two thorough and impartial citizens assemblies.
When the Government launched the process without a mechanism for collecting empirical data, Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan advocacy group, started tracking the process very closely. We are releasing the results of our work to the media because we believe the process needs to be transparent and accountable.
(You can find key a list of results below with links our spreadsheets.)
Despite a strong call for proportional representation across all of the consultative platforms, we believe reforming the electoral system could be in serious trouble based on recent comments from Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Monsef.
President Réal Lavergne expressed Fair Vote Canada’s concerns “We are worried that the Minister and the Prime Minister are saying that we cannot count on the government keeping its promise to make every vote count. Yet experts and Canadians have clearly expressed themselves in favour of proportional representation, which is what it really means to “make every vote count.”.
David Merner, Vice-President of Fair Vote Canada and former LPC candidate (2015)
David Merner, Vice-President of Fair Vote Canada and a Liberal candidate in last year’s federal election adds “This is not the time for back-tracking. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Democratic Institutions have personally created a sense of hope in Canadians, building on the 2015 Liberal campaign promise of Real Change. Millions of voters believed that the government intended to keep its promises. We believed the political cynicism of the Harper years was behind us, and thousands of us participated in the government’s consultations in good faith.”
Merner says “Now is the time for the government to deliver on its promises.”
Highly regarded Conservative strategist and spokesperson for the Every Voter Counts Alliance, Guy Giorno, adds that “committee members must endorse what’s right for Canadians, not what benefits any particular party. Given the weight of the evidence before the committee, the only legitimate option is a recommendation for proportional representation. Let’s also remember that electoral reform was a major issue at the last election, and voters overwhelmingly supported parties promising change.”
The weight of expert testimony in favour of PR was echoed across the country in hundreds of town halls and public dialogues.
Over the next few days the ERRÉ will negotiate a recommendation for a new electoral system for Canada. The final report is due on December 1.
Fair Vote Canada’s President Réal Lavergne explains that “Once that recommendation has been made, it will be incumbent on the minister to carry it forward and for the government to act on it. Leadership will be required to educate both the public and parliamentarians, and to champion the proposed reform.”
“Based on all the results of the expert and citizen consultations, the committee’s only legitimate option is to recommend in favour of proportional representation.”
Key indicators from ERRÉ hearings
Canadian Electoral System expert Dennis Pilon testified before the ERRE Committee.
88% of expert witnesses who expressed a preference called for proportional representation
4% supported the Alternative Vote
(majoritarian ranked ballot systems tend to evolve towards a two-party system, often favour centrist parties and could further entrench the distortions brought about by our existing majoritarian system. )
67% thought a referendum was undesirable or unnecessary.
Here are basic indicators from the 27 dialogues or town halls hosted by citizens and community groups posted on the ERRÉ site or for which we have directly obtained the information so far:
Total number of participants: 1,058
88% (22 events) – A majority of speakers calling for proportional representation
8% (2 events ) – A majority for change but no majority for any one option
12% (3 events) – Report does not allow any majority view to be identified.
We are aware of at least 15-20 other community dialogues that are not yet posted on the ERRÉ site.
Minister Monsef organized two types of town hall consultations: ones in her own riding, and others as part of a cross-country tour. Here is an extract from the report submitted to the ERRÉ on town halls held by Minister Monsef in her Riding of Peterborough:
“It is clear that there is an appetite for thoughtful change to the electoral system. While opinions on the various electoral systems did vary, most participants indicated their support for a more proportional electoral process that still respected the need for local representation and simplicity of the ballot.”
Although Minister Monsef routinely conducted straw polls on issues such as mandatory voting and online voting in town halls on the road, she did not do the same regarding support for proportional representation. FVC volunteers attended these events across the country and shared their opinions. Here are a few quotes from participants:
Toronto: “PR was clearly the main issue for most. With respect to PR, many attendees spoke passionately and eloquently in favour, and if anyone present opposed it, he or she was not bold enough to express that view.”
Vancouver: “It seemed that 90% of the audience… did want some form of PR.”
Edmonton: “ It seemed most people were in support of some sort of proportional representation.”
Yellowknife: “She asked whether the participants liked FPTP to remain, or Ranked system or STV or MMP or Proportional Representation implemented. One voted for FPTP. Many voted for MMP and a few voted for PR.”
Yukon: “Some Yukoners came in support of our current electoral system (First Past the Post); more were on the side of moving towards proportional representation.”
Halifax: “The feedback from the groups certainly favoured PR.”
Montreal: “There was an overwhelming support for PR in the room.”
Thunder Bay: “Of the dozens who rose to spoke, everyone spoke in favour of PR.”
Gatineau: “ Participants spoke to PR at every opportunity they had… However, the format made this difficult… Taking into consideration those interventions that spoke to the issue of PR vs FPTP or AV, the overwhelming majority of interventions – in the order of 70% or more – were in favour of PR.”
Waterloo: From the report of 4 MPs: “Every group discussed the need for our new electoral system to feature some degree of proportionality.”
Charlottetown: “ About 90% of the people there were pro-PR.”
Winnipeg: After noting that three people were for FPTP because they feared losing local representation. The rest of the comments I heard were mostly just preferences for the different PR systems.”
Happy Valley-Goose Bay: “What we said was that we wanted PR BUT, it had to be a hybrid type that considered the lack of population and massive land mass of not only Labrador but 60 % of Canada, i.e. the North.”
Calgary: “There was overwhelming support for getting rid of the current system, with different groups mentioning STV or MMP as their top choice.”
A concluding note
And, to conclude, this eloquent quote from a Fair Vote Canada volunteer at the Victoria town hall where the Minister said she “can’t promise you that I’ll be advocating for PR because I haven’t heard that from an overwhelming majority across the country.“
Victoria:
“The wheels were skidding out of control as we tried to combat the spin we received at last night’s town hall on Electoral Reform. Maryam Monsef, the Minister of Democratic Institutions hosted the gathering in Victoria billed as “the last chance” to give your input. But the tone of the meeting was quite acrimonious. They were clearly managing the message while backpedaling from an election commitment about changing the electoral system. Not only did she defend Trudeau’s recent comments about no longer needing this reform because we voted for HIM.”
“After months of hearing expert witness by the proportionally cross-partisan panel, and while MPs held public consultations with thousands of Canadians across the country, are we now to believe there is no appetite for Proportional Representation? Monsef said that she has not yet made up her mind but the implication of her words was troubling. Will the government diminish the committee’s well-researched, democratic report in December by championing their predetermined preference? For many of us who attended last night the so-called consultation felt like a sham.”
PS from Laurel:
I’ve chosen to used my own photographs, here, not only because they are free culture photos (licensed to share under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License) but because the number of electoral reform events in and around Waterloo Region has been staggering, and I wanted to share some of them with you, but there were so many local ERRÉ events that I attended (and I didn’t attend them all) that there isn’t enough room here to use photos from them all!
There was a time not long ago when I knew nothing about electoral reform. It was only when I was asked to take photos at local Fair Vote Waterloo events that I found myself listening to what the Fair Vote folks had to say, and after a while I even started understanding it. This was not an easy process, nor was it fast. It can take a while to really gain an understanding of something completely different from what we’re used to.
That’s why every electoral reform event must incorporate an education piece. The thing that I have seen over and over again is that even though Canadians may not know the words for it, or how to fix it, we know something is wrong with our voting system that needs to be fixed.
That is why Mr. Trudeau’s “We will make every vote count” resonated with so many people.
And what I have learned from every discussion and every ERRÉ event I’ve attended is that when Canadians have a chance to understand the difference between winner-take-all and Proportional Representation, we almost always want some form of PR. I think that’s because most Canadians value fairness, and the only way to get to a point where the votes of most Canadians actually count will require some form of Proportional Representation.
Fair Vote Canada suggests Canadians who want to see the implementation of some form of Proportional Representation would do well to let the ERRÉ Committee know about it, and to make it easier for us, they have an automated tool to help us send a letter urging the committee to recommend PR here:
An excellent tool to keep track of whether or not the Trudeau Government is fulfilling the promises made in its election platform is the non-partisan collaborative citizen initiative website called the “
A concluding note
• 
