When the Ford government killed the Hamilton, Brantford and Brant County Basic Income Pilot project in 2018, it offered a number of justifications.

Minister of social services at the time Lisa MacLeod said the pilot was "failing." She also said it was expensive, and "clearly not the answer for Ontario families." And she said it was causing people to stop working: "It really is a disincentive to get people back on track." And, she added, ministry staff were reporting the program wasn't helping participants become "independent contributors to the economy."

Observers said at the time they had many questions. What data showed the pilot was failing? How could the government know only a year into the project? And why did Doug Ford's people say earlier they intended to keep the pilot going and were looking forward to the data generated?

The government had no answers. No data. No proof. Just the blanket condemnation of the historic pilot project that was developed through thousands of hours of effort and collaboration across many sectors, including people living in poverty.

The cynics among us at the time said the government was lying. This newspaper said the decision was entirely ideological, not based on any evidence.

Thanks to a new report by four McMaster University researchers, we now know the cynics were right. Not only was there no evidence for cancelling the three-year pilot after a year, but there is ample evidence the project was doing precisely what it was intended to do, as did a much earlier basic income pilot in Manitoba in the '70s.

Editorial Cartoon for Mar. 7 | Graeme MacKay

It didn't discourage people from working. In fact, nearly three-quarters of participants who were working when the project began kept working although they were receiving less than the full basic income allotment. Mac economics professor Wayne Lewchuk, one of the authors, put it this way. "Many of those who continued working were actually able to move to better jobs, jobs that had a higher hourly wage, that had in general better working conditions that they felt were more secure."

Eighty-three per cent of respondents said they felt less stressed and anxious, and 81 per cent felt more self-confident. Their diet improved. They had more secure housing. Sixty-six per cent said they formed better relationships. Nearly 80 per cent reported better overall health, half were using less tobacco and 48 per cent were drinking less. Some used the extra income to go back to school. Here's Lewchuk again, as quoted in a CBC report: "What became clear is that as people moved to some stability their health improved, their mental health improved, their outlook on life improved. You have to believe that actually made them more employable."

This is what the Ford government calls failure.

Governments around the world are recognizing that some form of basic income (which Canada already offers to certain citizens in the form of CPP and child benefits) is a common-sense approach, not only to fight poverty but as a response to the rapidly changing working world, including the growing gig economy. Ontario was among world leaders on basic income. Ford ended that.

But if there's a silver lining, it is in what we learned. This research, conducted by Lewchuk, Mohammad Ferdosi, Tom McDowell and Stephanie Ross, is a big part of that. It will be added to the growing pool of evidence supporting basic income as an option to current social service delivery, and a support in a changing work environment.

Sooner or later, we will again have a government with vision and foresight. In the meantime, this research is an invaluable tool that will benefit others if not, sadly, Ontarians.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: