| Introducing Inroads | |
Introducing Inroads #6 | ||
|
The main theme of this issue is social exclusion and poverty and what's to be done about it. The supply of “good jobs” for those with low education is declining much faster than the demand for such jobs. The wages of people without the knowledge to command today's complex technology have been falling. Among men, earnings have polarized. Single parenthood, also on the rise, is creating another dimension of social exclusion. The typical poor are no longer old, but rather families with children, and single-parent ones in particular — half of which qualify for welfare. Experts differ on the causes of these trends, but all agree that they are irreversible. So what can we do? Everyone says upgrade skills; and we must — but that will still leave many excluded. One challenge is to give those born into poor families a chance to qualify for the high-paid, high-skilled jobs. The federal government, says Tom Kent, should make its priority the problems of the young. He proposes a system of child care vouchers, income-contingent loans for post-secondary education, and fully-financed comprehensive health services for children. To pay for these programs, Kent would draw on private retirement savings plans and other sources of tax-sheltered income. Kent was a major architect of the social programs of Liberal governments of an earlier generation. Hugh Segal, policy advisor to more recent Conservative ones, takes a more radical view. There is only one policy, Segal concludes, that can address the needs of the excluded: the basic income floor. The principle is simple: in the case of most Canadians, the state does not ask how their income reaches a certain level; it simply taxes it. So when income collapses, the state has no right to cast judgment by asking why. It should provide a “negative income,” that is a guaranteed annual income. Segal realizes that such a policy is a radical break from the piecemeal programmes of the past, but insists that nothing less can meet the needs of an age where technology is itself radically transforming many aspects of life. But Inroads co-editor, John Richards sounds a cautionary note. It is wrong, he contends, for governments to provide non-employment income to poor families on a long-term basis — because of what it does to the stability of the family unit. Since men still bear the major responsibility for earning the family income, the immediate effect of a guaranteed annual income would be to devalue the father's role, and lead to even more family breakdown. At similar income levels, children growing up in fatherless families do less well at school and are more prone themselves to become single parents. Instead of guaranteeing income, he insists, we should support federal and provincial initiatives to provide earning supplements to poor families. A unique insight into the dynamics of the changing technology is provided in the article that follows. Harvey Schacter brings 25 years of first-hand experience to bear in an engrossing — and sometimes chilling — account of the transformation of the Canadian newspaper industry in the last quarter of this century, and how it has changed the lives of Canadians. Inroads #5 featured a round-table discussion among key players from the then recently defeated Ontario NDP government. To follow up, Inroads invited five leading young voices on the left, Mark Kingwell, Naomi Klein, Irshad Manji, Tom Parkin, and Alexandra Samuel, to another round table. Interestingly, despite their shared goals, their divergent approaches and strategies make them reluctant to identify politically as a generation. Indeed, they have all become more suspicious of the very idea of identity politics. Identity politics is the theme of the article that follows, which sets out an original and innovative constitutional proposal. Howard and Robert Chodos want to replace the Canadian Senate with a House of Identities to give political expression to groups sharing an identity but not geographically concentrated. Building on overlapping allegiances could help break Canada's constitutional impasse, they contend, because it could both symbolically and concretely recognize Quebec's distinctiveness without giving formally distinct powers, rights or responsibilities to Quebeckers. John Richards, in a brief rejoinder, demurs. Such ideas divert attention from the only kind of proposals that could break the impasse. When it comes to Quebec's place in the constitution, it is not representation but power that matters. Richards argues in a separate article, the power that matters above all is over language: either Canada accepts frankly the legitimacy of Quebeckers collectively protecting French as the lingua franca within their province, or Quebec leaves. And if Quebec leaves, he suggests, a good part of the blame will lie with the official-language minorities and the Charter advocates who have skewed the debate against needed compromise. Developments in Quebec is a theme running through several of the articles in this issue. Inroads #6 begins with an important contribution by La Presse financial writer, Miville Tremblay, who spent a year interviewing the foreign bond managers who hold Canada and Quebec debt. Tremblay provides an in-depth account of the PQ's intricate balancing act of satisfying foreign bondholder while maintaining popular and organizational support at home. Continued success hinges on the capacity of Quebec business, union and government leaders to disagree, yet, at the end of the day, arrive at a deal. Recent experience at two economic summits and in the pre-budget round of negotiations with public sector workers, suggest that Lucien Bouchard's balancing skill is greater than many skeptics believe. But the show is far from over. If the Quebec government prevails in this balancing act, events not very far off could very well could follow a scenario set out in playwright and Inroads co-editor Arthur Milner's new radio play It's not a Country, its Winter, which we are proud to introduce here. The scene is English-speaking Montreal; the time is the weeks following a YES victory in a referendum on Quebec sovereignty. The contents of this issue are rounded out by two articles on international themes. Laurent Dobuzinskis explores contemporary intellectual currents in France. Today — he notes — French intellectuals are finally and unequivocally rallying to the cause of liberal democracy and — a little more grudgingly — to free markets. The collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and in the developing world has brought an end to the French intellectual tendency to rationalize totalitarian ideas, a tradition that extends from Sartre's flirtation with Maoism and Celine's embrace of fascism back to a widespread fascination with the politics of Robespierre and the Jacobins. The second international article forces us to think again about the terrible 1994 Rwandan genocide. Jurist William Schabas has just returned from the most recent of his many visits to Rwanda. He was a trial observer for Amnesty International. At present, 87,000 people are in jail accused of genocide, a genocide that all but destroyed the legal system that the world expects to deal justly with the accused. To do so by the standards of rich and peaceful countries would entail a far more sophisticated legal system than Rwanda's resources will allow. Yet letting perpetrators of the genocide walk free alongside their victims is no alternative, he points out. The international community must show understanding and respect for indigenous solutions. There are ways—there must be ways—he concludes, to assure justice in even the poorest of societies. Immediately following this introduction is a letter from Ian Malcolm who takes issue with an article by Robert Martin in Inroads #5. We welcome such letters. But we also know that, in a journal that is (until further notice) published only once a year, a response takes some time to find its way into print. So, despite sharing Harvey Schacter's misgivings about replacing printed pages by electronic ones, Inroads announces its new Web site: http://www.inroadsjournal.ca/. Not only can you find out about current and back issues, you can send a letter to be published, or share your opinions with the editors. We will respond to any reasonable comment or suggestion. And if there is enough interest, we will start to post letters and responses on the Web site, to allow readers to discuss issues among themselves. |
 |
 Return to Contents To see if copies of this issue are available, go to the Back Issue page |
