by Kate McFarland | Apr 25, 2017 | News
Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario, announced some long-awaited details of the Canadian province’s pilot study of guaranteed minimum income on Monday, April 24, 2017, including the locations, time-frame, and general design of the study.
The Government of Ontario is preparing a three-year test of a guaranteed minimum income in three regions: the city of Hamilton (southeastern Ontario, population around 537,000), Thunder Bay (northwestern Ontario, population around 108,000), and Lindsay (southeastern Ontario, population around 20,000).
Kathleen Wynne, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Premier of Ontario Photography
A press release issued on April 24 indicates that 4,000 individuals between ages 18 and 64 will be selected to participate in the study. According to Wynne, participation will be voluntary, but few other details concerning the selection of participants are currently available. Contrary to some initial speculations, it appears that the study will not include a saturation site.
Participants in the study will be assigned either to a control or treatment group. Those in the treatment group will be eligible for the following benefits, to be paid in cash:
- Up to $16,989 per year for a single person (with the amount reduced by 50% of the amount of any income earned on top of the benefit).
- Up to $24,027 per year for a couple (with the amount reduced by 50% of the amount of any income earned on top of the benefit).
- Up to an additional $6,000 per year for a person with a disability.
Although commonly called a “basic income pilot” — including by the Government of Ontario — the scheme to be tested bears several notable differences from a “basic income” as defined by BIEN. First, the amount of the transfer is not independent of household composition: couples will receive a smaller total amount than would two single individuals. Additionally, the amount of the transfer is not constant irrespective of means, but instead decreases with earned income. However, the scheme is importantly similar to a basic income in that receipt of the benefit is not conditional on any type of participation or work requirement (e.g. recipients do not need to demonstrate that they are working or looking for work) and in that no restrictions are placed on how recipients may spend the money received.
More details concerning the precise design of the study will follow, with the Ontario government stating that the province is partnering with Hamilton, Thunder Bay, and Lindsay to ensure that the pilot “is fair, effective, and scientifically valid.” The press release adds: “A third-party research consortium that will evaluate the study will be announced shortly. The province will form an advisory group with research and evaluation experts to ensure that the pilot is conducted with the utmost integrity, rigour and ethical standards.”
The pilot will begin in Hamilton and Thunder Bay later in the spring, and in Lindsay in the autumn.
Ontario’s plans for a pilot study of guaranteed income have been a topic of discussion in the basic income community since February 2016, when the province announced plans to fund a “Basic Income pilot” in its budget. Project advisor Hugh Segal, a former Canadian Senator, released the paper “Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario” to serve as the focus of discussions on the design of the pilot in November 2016. Segal’s paper clarified that the study would most likely take the form of a negative income tax rather than a “demogrant” (commonly called a “basic income”) in which all subjects would receive a cash grant of uniform amount. Following the release of the extensive discussion paper, the provincial government held a series of public consultations, the results of which were published in March 2017.
Currently, Ontario is the only region in Canada that plans to conduct a pilot of a guaranteed minimum income, although the governments of other provinces, such as Quebec and Prince Edward Island, have also expressed considerable interest.
Watch Wynne’s announcement of Ontario’s experiment:
See also the News Release from the Government of Ontario: “Giving More People an Opportunity to Get Ahead and Stay Ahead: Ontario Basic Income Pilot to Launch in Thunder Bay, Hamilton and Lindsay” (April 24, 2017).
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Cover photo:Legislative Building for the Provincial Government of Ontario, CC BY-NC 2.0 Alan English CPA
by Kate McFarland | Apr 11, 2017 | Research
Canada’s Citizens for Public Justice (CPJ), a faith-based nonprofit organization dedicated to researching and promoting justice in public policy, has published a briefing note on CPJ’s position on guaranteed livable income (GLI) (sometimes also referred to as a ‘guaranteed minimum income’ or ‘guaranteed annual income’). CPJ defines a GLI as an “income security system that would ensure that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life and the means to participate meaningfully in the life of their community” — which encompasses several types of policies, including a negative income tax (NIT), top-up programs, and a universal basic income (here called a ‘demogrant’ as is common in Canadian terminology*).
A long-time supporter of GLI, CPJ has published work on the topic in the past, including an infographic previously featured in Basic Income News (here and here) and a backgrounder report and position paper that were published as two-part feature “Toward a Guaranteed Livable Income” in June 2008. Additionally, CPJ has participated in events hosted by BIEN’s two North American affiliates–the Basic Income Canada Network and US Basic Income Guarantee Network–and, indeed, the organization was a cofounder of the Canadian affiliate at the 2008 BIEN Congress in Dublin, Ireland.
In the new paper, CPJ re-articulates its position that GLI is “an important strategy for addressing fundamental societal inequities” in Canada. More specifically, it recommends an incremental approach to implementing a nationwide GLI program, expanding successful programs for children and seniors to poor adults of working age. In this, CPJ calls for an NIT or top-up design–which would involve transfers only to the poor–over a basic income or demogrant, which judges to be “prohibitively expensive” even at amounts below the country’s most commonly used low-income levels. Moreover, CPJ recommends that, while benefits should be granted to individuals (as in a basic income), the program should be structured to account for household characteristics (such as numbers of children and caregivers) in determining the amount of the benefit.
CPJ advises the use of pilot studies to determine what specific design of the GLI is most effective at reducing poverty while guaranteeing that no low-income individuals are worse off than under the current system. In doing so, the organization stresses the importance of community involvement in the research.
The CPJ’s new briefing note comes at a time when GLI is in the spotlight in Canada–with Ontario planning to launch a pilot study in the spring of this year. In February 2016, the provincial government allocated part of its budget to a GLI pilot, and the project has been in development since this time. Following the release of a preliminary discussion paper by project adviser Hugh Segal (a former Canadian Senator and long-time GLI advocate), the government solicited public feedback on the design of the pilot. Results from the public consultations were published in March 2017.
Reference
Citizens for Public Justice (March 2017) “Briefing Note: Towards a Guaranteed Livable Income“
*In the Canadian context, the term ‘basic income’ or ‘basic income guarantee’ is frequently used to mean guaranteed livable income.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Kat Northern Lights Man
by Kate McFarland | Mar 22, 2017 | News
The government of Ontario has released an overview of the results of three months of public consultations on the design of the province’s impending “Basic Income Pilot”.
The provincial government of Ontario, Canada is currently designing a pilot study of a guaranteed minimum income (a “basic income” in its terminology [note]), which it plans to launch in the spring of 2017. On November 3, 2016, project advisor Hugh Segal released the paper “Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario” to serve as the focus of discussions on the design of the pilot (see the summary in Basic Income News). Concurrent with the publication of the paper, Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services released a call for feedback from the public via public meetings, online surveys, and written submissions.
Public consultations continued through January 31, 2017, and, in the end, 32,870 people responded to the public online survey, 1193 attended the public meetings, and at least 537 individuals and community groups submitted written feedback–according to a newly released summary of the results of the consultations.
The new report, “Basic Income Consultations: What We Heard” (March 2017), provides an overview of feedback received from the public, although no details have yet been provided as to how this feedback will inform or influence the design of the pilot.
One issue addressed in the consultations was which of the potential measurable outcomes were most important to Ontarians. Segal suggested ten in his discussion paper, and consultations revealed “general agreement” that, of these, four were “particularly important” to residents: health, housing, food, and work behavior.
The level of the minimum income was also a topic of discussion–with the widely announced amount of $1320 per month called into question by some. This $1320 per month amount, which Segal recommended in his discussion paper, was based on a calculation of 75% of the Low-Income Measure (LIM). Some participants in public hearings recommended instead that the minimum income be set at 100% of the LIM.
Participants also discussed the selection of sites for the pilot, with widespread agreement that a variety of locations should be chosen, representing urban, rural, and northern areas, but that the government should also strive to focus on areas of greatest need (i.e. highest poverty rates).
Read about other results here.
[note] As is common in Canada, the Ontario government uses the term ‘basic income’ more broadly than does BIEN. The report above, for example, describes a basic income as a “payment from the government to a person or family to ensure they receive a minimum income level” and lays out several methods of implementing such a policy: “giving the same amount of money to everyone” (i.e. the specific approach that organizations like BIEN refer to as a “basic income”, sometimes also called a “demogrant”), “topping up the incomes of people who earn less than a certain amount”, and “setting up a system where people who earn less than a certain amount get a payment from the government, instead of paying taxes” (i.e. a negative income tax).
Often, ‘basic income’ is used to refer specifically to schemes in which all members of a community receive an equal amount of money, paid to individuals, while a term like ‘guaranteed minimum income’ is applied to the broader category of “payment[s] from the government to a person or family to ensure they receive a minimum income level”. Thus, although the Ontario government has titled its project “Basic Income Pilot”, it might be more accurate to describe it as a “minimum income pilot” to avoid confusion with BIEN’s more specific use of ‘basic income’.
Segal himself strongly recommended that the pilot avoid testing a “demogrant” (“universal basic income”) in favor of a negative income tax. However, as the new report reveals, some participants in the consultations suggested the adoption of a demogrant model.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo (Ottawa, Ontario) CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Stuart Williams
by Kate McFarland | Feb 15, 2017 | News
In January, Apolitical published an exclusive interview with two leaders behind the planning of a pilot study of a basic income guarantee program in Ontario, Canada: Helena Jaczek, Ontario’s Minister of Community and Social Services, and project advisor Hugh Segal.
Earlier this month, the interview was republished in the official blog of the World Economic Forum, the Switzerland-based organization responsible for the prestigious annual Davos meeting (which this year held a panel discussion and debate on “basic income: dream or delusion”).
In the interview, Jaczek and Segal explain the reasons for their interest in and optimism about basic income. Jaczek sees the program as a means to provide economic security to allow individuals to contribute to society. Segal supports basic income as a way to avoid the “poverty trap” that occurs when poor individuals lose benefits after taking a job, as well as a way to empower the poor to make decisions on their own behalf.
The Government of Ontario has recently completed public consultation hearings on an initial proposal for the pilot study, and will release its final plan in Spring 2017. As proposed, the pilot will consist of both a randomized control study in a large metropolitan area (in which randomly selected individuals receive the basic income guarantee) and several saturation studies (in which all members of a small city receive the basic income guarantee). If Segal’s initial recommendations are followed, subjects will be eligible to receive an unconditional cash transfer of up to 1,320 CAD (about 1,000 USD) per month, gradually tapered off with additional earnings, which would replace existing unemployment programs in the province.
Read more:
“Exclusive: Inside Canada’s new basic income project,” Apolitical, January 4, 2017.
“Canada’s basic income experiment – will it work?” World Economic Forum blog, February 2, 2017.
Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg
Photo (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) CC BY 2.0 Brian Burke
by Kate McFarland | Jan 25, 2017 | News
In a reversal of a decision last December, the council of the Eastern Ontario town Smiths Falls has voted to send a delegate to an upcoming convention of municipalities to lobby for the town’s selection in Ontario’s basic income pilot study.
Background: Ontario’s Pilot Plans
The Canadian province of Ontario is currently in the consultation phase of the design of a pilot study of a basic income guarantee. According to the recommendations of the project adviser Hugh Segal, the pilot should test a guaranteed minimum income of approximately $1320 per month, plus an additional $500 for those with disabilities, which would replace the province’s current welfare and disability programs (Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program) for at least three years. Segal proposes that this basic income guarantee take the form of a negative income tax, in which participants with no income would receive the full $1320 cash transfer, with no strings attached. The amount of the transfer would be gradually clawed back with additional earnings, with the result that participants whose income remains sufficiently high would receive no money as a result of participation in the pilot. The pilot will likely be designed to assess a variety of outcomes, such as health, food security, education, and employment.
While the final design of the pilot has not yet been announced, Segal has recommended that it include the selection of three saturation sites: communities in which every adult resident would be assured of the guaranteed minimum income. Saturation sites allow the province to investigate the effects of a basic income guarantee at a community level (such as effects on crime, utilization of public services, and civic participation), as well as to examine the process of administering the program within an entire municipality. (Segal advises that government test the basic income guarantee in such saturation in addition to conducting a randomized control trial in a large urban area.)
Segal further suggests that three saturation sites be chosen to represent three different “faces” of the province: Southern Ontario, Northern Ontario, and indigenous communities. He recommends that the communities be relatively geographically isolated, to limit “contagion” effects from surrounding communities, and to have stable populations. (For more discussion of the desired characteristics of saturation sites, see “Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario”.)
The final design of the study is expected to be announced in April 2017, after which the pilot will enter its implementation phase.
New Support from Smiths Falls Council
Smiths Falls, an Eastern Ontario town of around 9,000 residents, now plans to lobby the provincial government for selection as one of the saturation sites. On January 16, 2017, the town’s council voted to send a delegate to the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) Conference, which will take place at the end of the month in Toronto. At the conference, municipal delegates will have an opportunity to present their cases before Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS).
The council’s vote reversed a decision of December 19, 2016, when it voted 3-2 against sending a delegate to ROMA to lobby for the town’s selection in the pilot — a decision that defied the wishes of Mayor Shawn Pankow and incited protests among the Smiths Falls residents.
Prior to the December 19 meeting, Pankow had written to MCSS, expressing a desire that the provincial government consider Smiths Falls as a site for its basic income pilot. This action was taken without the knowledge of full council, leading some councillors to hesitate endorsing the proposal (with one later stating that he had felt “blindsided” by the mayor’s action). Pankow himself was unable to attend the meeting during which the council voted down the motion to lobby in favor of the pilot, having been stuck in holiday traffic en route from Ottawa.
The December 19 vote was not a vote against participation in the pilot per se (as the provincial government could still select Smith Falls for the pilot, even if the town itself does not produce a delegate lobby for it), and not all councillors who cast negative votes were themselves opposed to the idea of a basic income guarantee (or even, necessarily, its implementation in Smiths Falls). Nonetheless, some councillors did use the opportunity to voice their general opposition to basic income. Councillor Dawn Quinn, for example, was widely cited in the press for her assertions that the distribution of unconditional cash transfers is the wrong approach to poverty and that, instead, poor people must learn how to better budget their money.
The council’s initial decision faced a backlash from residents. One resident, Carol Anne Knapp, started a petition in the days after the vote, calling upon the council to conduct a re-vote on the matter. In early January, Knapp and another resident, Darlene Kantor, interrupted a city council meeting to demand the council support efforts to bring the basic income pilot to Smiths Falls.
The town has faced economic hardship following the closure of a Hershey’s chocolate plant in 2008, as well as the loss of other manufacturing plants such as Shorewood Packaging and Stanley Tools. Residents like Knapp and Kantor believe that the council should welcome the basic income pilot (if Smiths Falls is selected) as a potential solution to its high rate of poverty.
On January 12, a public information session on the basic income pilot, convened by the Smiths Falls council, drew a crowd of more than 250 people.
The response of constituents was influential in the council’s reversal of its decision at the January 16 special meeting.
References and Further Information:
Evelyn Harford, “Smiths Falls town council won’t have ultimate sway on basic income pilot project’s location, says province,” Smiths Falls Record News, January 6, 2017.
Evelyn Harford, “Protesters make a stand in support of basic income pilot at Smiths Falls town council,” Smiths Falls Record News, January 9, 2017.
Hillary Johnstone, “‘An occupy moment’: Smiths Falls residents demand basic income pilot project,” CBC News, January 10, 2017.
Evelyn Harford, “Council votes to send basic income delegation to ask questions, lobby province,” Smiths Falls Record News, January 16, 2017.
Chris Must, “Council reverses stance on basic income lobbying,” Hometown News.
See also:
John Chang, “CANADA: Council of small town Smiths Falls rejects basic income trial, residents disagree,” Basic Income News, January 16, 2017.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: Bridge near Smiths Falls, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 David McCormack
