by Don Malcolm
The restrictions placed on welfare recipients make it virtually impossible for them to break away from the system. To begin with, in order to qualify for social assistance, an applicant must have an address. When faced with the requirement of paying a damage deposit plus a month's rent in advance, for someone with no financial resources, an address is very difficult to establish.
Once having cleared the hurdle of establishing an address and thereby qualifying for social assistance, the recipient is required to remain in the area, seeking employment and regularly reporting to the local Human Resources office.
For many, social assistance is a dead end. If stuck in an area of limited employment opportunities, the prospect of moving and qualifying again in another location that may not be any better is a disincentive. Many simply lose hope and fall into the routine of a life on social assistance that falls far short of fulfilling the hopes and expectations of the individual or the community at large.
We must be, like Admiral Lord Nelson at the Battle Of Trafalgar, looking at the situation with our blind eye to the telescope, only pretending to read the signal flags. But there the similarity ends. Nelson won his battle. It appears we are losing ours.
We are wasting the potential of what must be one of the most favoured areas of our planet. We are squandering the great wealth of our natural resources, and the promise of fulfilment and satisfaction for our citizens. We have measured success by a yard-stick of inequality rather than community. Many have far too little while others have far too much. We are in grave danger of losing the opportunity to set an example to the world.
It's time, again, to raise the issue of a guaranteed income. A national, portable, non-judgemental, guaranteed income could replace Old Age Security and Canada Pension. Disability pensions, workers compensation, social assistance, employment insurance and whatever other programs now exist could be rolled into the same plan. Private pension plans would not be affected.
Individuals could be taxed when combined income reaches a determined level; realistic resource royalties and corporate income tax could reflect the cost of the guaranteed income plan.
The bulk of those on social assistance or at the bottom end of the income scale are living in the areas of greatest population density. Ironically, those are the areas of the highest cost of living, along with the greatest competition for employment.
A guaranteed income plan for all, with a claw-back clause to discourage abuse, would very likely cost less than the crazy-quilt coverage we have at present. Combining all those expensive bureaucracies into one compact unit would be only the beginning of societal benefits to come.
No longer would citizens be tethered to the office that issues their social assistance or employment insurance cheques. They would be free to seek out areas where the cost of living is lower and employment opportunities, if not better, are at least no worse. The possibility of organizing co-op housing and business ventures could become a reality.
Public land could be made available for habitation. Populations, regardless of size, generate supporting enterprise and therefore taxes. History has demonstrated the success of such ventures. Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver are examples.
We have in our population, many well educated and skilled organizers and planners who would welcome a chance to pursue a career that doesn't prove to be yet another trip down a wrong road. Perhaps, with careful planning and strict attention to sustainability, we could avoid such tragedies as the boom and bust cycles of our forestry, mining and fishing industries.
Perhaps we could even come to the realization that imagination, although intangible, is by far our most valuable resource.
***
[From WS April/May 2002]