INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY =e

Keeping

By KAREN DEAN

Poverty; living below the poverty
level. To thousands upon thousands of
B.C. women these dry terms fall far short
of describing the criminally inhumane
conditions to which they have been sent-
enced by the economic policies of our
senior governments.

The unforgiveable waste of human
potential is difficult to convey with statis-
tics, but these do point out the 2.3 million
women in Canada poverty has hit.
Women comprise 55.6 per cent of all low
income Canadians. Those over 65 make
up more than 70 per cent of that age
group living below the poverty line.

We are forced to raise our children on
incomes which raises doubts about our
ability to put food on the table, let alone
provide for all those experiences that
enrich childhood. Four out of every 10
families headed by women are poor.
Approximately one in seven of all Cana-
dian families are living below the poverty
level. Here in B.C. there has been a 73 per
cent increase in poor families since 1980.

More than one-fifth of Canadian
children are being raised on incomes
which are not sufficient to provide the
basic requirements of life.

Labor force participation is no gua-
rantee against poverty, despite popular
misconceptions. In fact, most poor fami-
lies are headed by people who work or
are actively searching for a job. In 1983,
almost 60 per cent of all low-income fam-
ilies were headed by men and women in
the labor force.

In light of these statistics, it is hardly
surprising that a guaranteed right to
adequate income is being advanced as an
immediate demand to meet a fundamen-
Abysmal levels of support offered by a
confusing myriad of federal, provincial
and municipal programs have prompted
organizations as diverse as the United
Church of Canada to the Communist
Party to advance the demand. As well,
the concept of a guaranteed income is an
attempt to grapple with the inequities
and degrading aspects of our present sys-
tems of aid to the financially disadvan-
taged. . .

But can we, as some organizations
suggest, advance this demand in isola-
tion from the Class nature of our society?

The Macdonald Royal Commission
on Canada’s economic future answers
this question most succinctly. In its
recent report the commission holds out
the promise of replacing what it calls our
“income security system” with a single
package. But its notion of a guaranteed
annual income offers no hope to Cana-
dian women.

While embracing the notion of one
program to replace many, the commis-
sion effectively skewered the chief intent
of the demand for a guaranteed adequate
income: sufficient levels of support to
lessen the possibility of a cheap labor
pool available for exploitation.

In fact, the commission is quite honest
about its intention to facilitate the crea-

tion of an extensive low-wage ghetto -

placed at employers’ disposal.
Comprehensive income-transfer/
reform packages are usually described as
“guaranteed annual incomes (GAIS).”
That term however, is not entirely
appropriate to the type of reform this
commission is suggesting. The term
“guaranteed income” often connotes a
program with a very high “guarantee
level” (a high level of benefits for those
who have no other income) and a rela-
tively high reduction in taxes for benefi-
ciaries.
_ In contrast, the Macdonald commis-
sion report states: “Commissioners
believe that an option which delivers a

women poor for

omen mar

eee

in Vancouver on | ternational Women's Day, 7 984, for equality, jobs and ‘decent incomes. Writer Karen D

notes the federal government’s Macdonald Commission advocates low-wage ghetto to provide corporations with mallea

work force of below-poverty line women.

relatively low guarantee level, but which
also has a lower reduction rate combined
with a special “top-up” for those who
cannot be expected to work, will produce
a more desirable combination of income
support and work incentives. . .We prefer
to describe such a package as a “Univer-
sal Income Security Program.”

It is intriguing to compare this
recommendation to that contained in the
submission to the commission of the
Canadian Manufacturers Association:

“A guaranteed income program should .

replace most existing income security
programs. This program should be care-
fully designed to provide an income
safety net while encouraging self-reliance
by ensuring that recipients can be finan-
cially better off working and earning
“come.”

The Macdonald Commission pro-
posed that the Universal Income Secur-
ity Program be funded through the
elimination of the Guaranteed Income
Supplement to seniors, family allowance,
child tax credits, married exemptions on
income tax, the federal share of CAP
welfare payments and, surprisingly,

~ social housing.

The insidious nature of this proposal
becomes clearer when looked at in the
context of the other “social policy”
proposals of the commission.

The report states: “Without the stabil-
izing, integrating contribution of the wel-
fare state, support for the relative
autonomy of capitalist markets would
crumble.”

On this premise, the commission:

© Suggests that minimum wages
shouldn't be allowed to rise too quickly
as these could discourage “wage flexibil-
ity.” (As alternatives the commission
proposes supplementing the income of
the working poor (Universal Income
Security) and improving training oppor-
tunities.);

© Proposes using cuts to Unemploy-
ment Insurance to finance a new Transition-
al Adjustment Assistance Fund which

would assist labor in adjusting to the needs .

of capital. Designed to “target” UI

exhaustees or permanent layoffs, and spe- -

cifically for those workers displaced by
free trade, it would support wage subsidy
programs, mobility grants, training pro-
grams, early retirement, and a loss of assets
from the decline of some communities.
Perhaps the most indicative of the
intent of the commission are the changes
proposed for Unemployment Insurance.

These bear an interesting resemblance to
those “questions” posed by the. recent
federal Task Force on Unemployment
Insurance.

The Macdonald Commission pro-
poses:

@ That UI premium rates be estab-
lished at rates proportional to the risk of
unemployment in any particular sector
or industry;

@ That benefits be reduced to 50 per
cent of insurable earnings;

..@ That a minimum of 15 to 20 weeks

be required to colléct insuratice ‘benefits ©)’ |

(the current period is 10-20 weeks),

@ That workers only be eligible to col-
lect one week of benefits for every two or
three weeks of work; «

@ The elimination of extended region-

: al benefits (which lengthen claims in rela-

tion to the rate of unemployment in one’s
region).

This proposal is. particularly note-
worthy because, first, it shows the rela-

‘tion between the philosophies of the

Macdonald Commission and the present
federal government. After all, these
changes were first proposed by Finance
Minister Michael Wilson in his November
1984 speech, “New Directions for Can-
ada.” It is clear that this government is in
total accord with the social policy of the
final Macdonald Commission report.

Second, these drastic cuts to the
Unemployment Insurance system show
exactly who this commission, and this
government, expects to pay for the
effects of their policies. While subverting
the real intent of the demand for a gua-
ranteed income, the commission and this
government hope to expedite the process
of transferring the burden of social pro-
grams costs to the working class of Can-
ada.

Unemployment Insurance, one of
only two programs which require a direct

contribution by employers to employee ~

benefits, will be downgraded if this pro-
cess is completed.

In 1954, individuals in Canada paid
$1.7 billion in income tax while corpora-
tions paid $1.05 billion. In 1982, prior to
the massive corporate handouts of the
last couple of years, individuals paid $26
billion and corporations paid only $8
billion. In other words, individuals were
paying at least three times as much as
corporations.

There were 8,102 people in 1983 who
earned $50,000 or more and didn’t pay
any income tax, a 50 per cent increase
over 1982.

The accumulated total of unpaid ¢

_ porate taxes was more than $23 billion

of June, 1984. By comparison, the te
federal deficit for that year was estin
at $32 billion.

(The federal budget introduced
week continues this trend. The emp
on increasing personal income taxes
the federal sales tax, while reducing
rate of corporate taxes, translates into a
minimum of another $4 billion sto
from working Canadians.)

_ There is.no question that it is the
of this commission and the fede
government to ensure the “autonomy
capitalists” by creating an accessib
necessarily malleable cheap labor po
funded by taxing those least able to

Women, major victims of this da
ous “poverty game,” face an import;
challenge: that of striking a nation
organized effort to demand a d
income in which the corporations

| their fair share of the costs.

There are pitfalls in simply criti
the commission’s income recomm
tion as being “inadequate” particu
we fail to address the question of y
should pay for such benefits. Is i
better to advance demands for
expansion of such programs as U;
ployment Insurance and the
Pension Plan, which at least begin
place some of the costs of social
grams where they belong? ta

We do not have to accept the attem
to limit Unemployment Insurance
smaller and smaller group of wo
We can demand that Unemplo
Insurance help protect us from the
ages caused by the economic polici
corporations and their representative
the provincial and federal governm
levels. Unemployment Insurance s!
at least pay 90 per cent of wages a
available for the entire period of
ployment.

Similarly, our demands for an
quate welfare rate could be tied t
demand for increased corporate
tion, or perhaps even a direct syst
contribution from profits to social
fare. There are many possibilities to
explored. _

It is our responsibility to ensw
our efforts to rise up from pove
designed to free us, not place us
beck and call of corporate needs
Macdonald Commission report, a
underlying philosophy, must be
and defeated, right across this co

10 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 5, 1986