Basic Income Pilot in-person discussion summaries

Hamilton meeting

The Hamilton public consultation was held on Tuesday, November 22^nd, 2016 at the Crowne Plaza Hamilton Hotel and Conference Center. Participants shared their ideas on five main areas about the pilot in smaller group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 97 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Minister of Community and Social Services (MCSS) Dr. Helena Jaczek was at the session to give opening remarks. Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) Ted McMeekin and Mayor of Hamilton Fred Eisenberger also attended for part of the evening.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Several groups suggested the following people should be eligible for the Pilot:

• people between the ages of 18 and 64
• seniors
• people living below the poverty line
• people who do not receive support from their families
• people on social assistance (e.g. Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program) should be eligible
• people who do not receive social assistance but have low income
• people from all types of demographics (e.g. age, gender, etc.)
• mixed family compositions (e.g. single parent, couple with children, etc.)

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot should take place in:

• urban, rural and northern locations
• a saturated sample site in a rural location (i.e., where all eligible people living in a selected location would participate in the pilot)
• an urban area that is strongly affected by poverty
• specific locations, including Peterborough (believed to represent a diverse population of Ontarians), Grey-Bruce County and Lanark County (believed to be small communities that have experienced negative economic effects)
• communities willing to participate, with an emphasis that communities should not have to apply to be selected as a Pilot location

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested:

• the basic income amount should be at or slightly above the poverty line
• should provide more than just the basic needs
• the amount should be chosen based on evidence
• additional supports are still needed beyond the basic income
• current benefits not only should continue but be expanded to include more people with low income

How the Pilot should be delivered

Several groups suggested the basic income should be delivered:

• by direct deposit, email money transfer, reloadable payment cards (such as the City Services Benefit Card)
• using a Negative Income Tax, where benefits are provided to people whose income falls below a minimum income level or alternate models (e.g., Universal Basic Income where benefits are paid to everyone regardless of income level)
• using different models in different locations
• free of barriers (e.g., layers of complicated rules)to reflect changes in a person’s income (e.g., not necessarily based on a person’s taxable income from the previous year) and should include people who don’t file taxes
• by current caseworkers in order to protect the confidentiality of participants and to keep their trust

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups felt that:

• behavioural changes that are indicative of a successful Pilot include healthier, happier and more empowered people living with more dignity, greater income security and less poverty
• the ten key areas in the basic income discussion paper are all important, and it was difficult to rank them
• improved health (physical and mental) was a priority

Most participants said they would like to see more people contributing to society as a result of the Pilot through things such as improved education outcomes, more entrepreneurs, participation in arts and leisure and increased volunteering.

Scarborough meeting

The Scarborough public consultation was held on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at the Marriott Delta Hotel - Toronto East. During the consultation, people took part in group discussions to share their ideas on five main areas about the Pilot. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 78 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Minister of Community and Social Services Dr. Helena Jaczek delivered opening remarks. Parliamentary Assistant for Poverty Reduction Han Dong, MPP Soo Wong and MPP Lorenzo Berardinettialso attended for part of the evening.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Several groups suggested that the following people should be eligible for the Pilot:

• people between the ages of 18 and 64
• people with disabilities
• people on social assistance (e.g., Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program)
• people who do not receive social assistance, but have no income or a low income
• people who are underemployed or trying to enter the workforce (e.g., new graduates and immigrants)

Additional suggestions included:

• people who are homeless
• undocumented residents
• single parents
• Indigenous people and communities
• seniors
• women fleeing domestic violence

There were also suggestions that Pilot participants could be selected by geographical area (e.g., an area where many individuals experience low income and other similar issues, such as limited transit options).

People offered varied suggestions about whether the Pilot eligibility should be based on:

• broad criteria or basic needs
• an individual’s income or family income

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the location could:

• include both rural and urban areas, as well as communities with high child poverty rates
• be focused on areas most in need, based on evidence and data
• take place across specific communities as problems could arise if every person in an area is not chosen to participate
• start in multiple locations at the same time, as it would allow groups to be compared, take less time and provide individuals with help earlier
• measure changes among individuals and the community as a whole

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level:

• be high enough to get individuals out of poverty and provide their basic needs
• be 100% of the Low Income Measure (LIM)
• use Hugh Segal’s model
• should not replace other social services, but work alongside them
• could consider other benefits, such as affordable childcare, transit, education, medical support (including mental health and dental), quality food and housing, access to Internet
• should take into account factors, such as employment, age, family size, cost of living, inflation, disabilities and geography (i.e., some areas are more expensive than others)
• could include services such as financial coaching and income tax support to provide additional support to individuals

How the Pilot should be delivered

Several groups:

• provided varied suggestions about whether the Pilot should be designed as a Negative Income Tax (NIT)
• supported the Universal Model
• felt that administration through the income tax system/Canada Revenue Agency would work, whereas some believe that the system is too complicated and has many barriers (e.g., many people in poverty do not file taxes)
• suggested the Pilot should be adaptable to changes in employment and emergency situations; however, there were varied suggestions about how frequently an individual’s situation should be assessed (e.g., quarterly, annually)

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• a successful Pilot would be one that eliminates poverty and focuses on an individual’s dignity
• they were willing to provide their personal information, as long as the system used for collection could not be hacked, is encrypted, and only aggregate information is used
• they were open to their information being shared publicly, and suggested progress reports be provided on a regular basis
• Pilot participants should be able to have access to results prior to public release
• the Pilot location should measure changes among individuals and the community as a whole

Sudbury meeting

The Sudbury public consultation was held on December 12, 2016 at the Lexington Hotel.

Participants shared their ideas on five main areas about the pilot in smaller group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 61 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Dr. Helena Jaczek, Minister of Community and Social Services delivered opening remarks.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Some groups suggested:

• everyone on low income should be eligible for the Pilot
• Hugh Segal’s proposed eligibility age range be extended to include individuals who are 16 and 17 years old that are living independently
• the proposed eligibility age range include the elderly
• eligibility should not depend on where people live so that if someone moves from a designated Pilot area, they do not lose access to Basic Income
• an individual should have lived in a community for a number of years, to demonstrate commitment to the community, to qualify for the Pilot
• participation in the Pilot should be based on a single person’s income because it prevents financial abuse, the number of individuals in a family may fluctuate, more individuals in a family may be jobless, and everyone should have their own money
• high family income should be considered and dealt with through another method
• participation in the Pilot should consider both a single person’s income and total family income
• consideration be given to parents, those who choose to stay at home,  the working poor, newcomers, refugees, those with dependents

Where the Pilot should take place

Some groups suggested the pilot take place in:

• a diverse population and most said there needs to be careful consideration of how diversity is defined across different communities.
• a community that includes a broad range of different sub-communities.
• in urban and rural sites in both Northern and southern Ontario, to be representative of individuals from across the province.
• First Nations communities, including both urban and rural communities, as well as isolated and/or fly-in communities.
• different communities to reduce the problem of involving just one community and to capture a broad range of potential recipients.
• communities that have submitted an application to participate in the Pilot. Some participants said communities should be able to express interest in the Pilot, after which some of those communities should be randomly selected to participate.
• the top ten regions of Ontario that have the most people on social assistance per capita.
• all locations at once, given that the Pilot and evaluation process will be lengthy. Participants also suggested starting at different times might skew results.
• one location, with additional locations added later as it would allow for greater representation.
• locations that could be selected to measure changes at both the individual level and at the level of whole communities. Participants noted, however, that it may be difficult to see whole community impact and that this might depend on the size of the Pilot

What the Basic Income level should be

Some groups suggested that:

• the Basic Income level should be enough to lift people out of poverty
• a region’s cost of living should be considered
• benefits should not be replaced, and that most should be expanded
• some benefits should be replaced, Ontario Works (OW), health benefits and child benefit in particular
• benefits should not include support for all services (e.g., rent, food) as individual should choose how they want to use the benefit, and suggested that only particular services such as health, dental, vision and drug benefits should be covered as part of a Basic Income Pilot.
• other benefits should be rolled into the Basic Income to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and administrative costs
• minimum wage should be considered to incent people to work
• the level should be flexible to changes in a person’s financial situation, especially in emergency or crisis
• other important services and supports to consider include health coverage (including drug, dental and vision care), food support, costs associated with living with a disability, day care, transportation, education level and literacy, clothing, housing/rent, case management, life skills coaching, money management, employment counselling, addiction and mental health supports, cultural support, family services, education around the basic income, program evaluation, system navigation, cost of utilities
• the current rates for social assistance should be raised.

How the Pilot should be delivered

Some groups suggested that:

• the Pilot should be designed as a Negative Income Tax, as this is the simplest, most efficient approach. Participants also said that the design needs to consider accommodations for individuals with no bank accounts, no fixed address or no access to photo identification.
• the Pilot should not be designed as a Negative Income Tax for the following reasons:
  • a Negative Income Tax design is difficult to understand
  • the approach will only be evaluated after living for a year in poverty
  • people do not budget annually, and an annual amount may not reflect changes during the year
  • not all individuals file income tax returns
• the Pilot allow for monthly or biweekly disbursements and that individuals participating in the Pilot should report earnings biweekly and then get “topped up” to a minimum through their mobile phone, online banking or other means. Further, whatever design approach selected the participants said it needed to be simple to understand for individuals with lived experience.
• the Pilot should be delivered outside of the income tax system through Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program infrastructure, or something similar.
• there are other methods for the delivery of the Pilot, in particular:
  • A universal payment to everyone with a tax claw back;
  • An amount determined annually but distributed monthly; and
  • Application for Basic Income, where eligible, similar to Gains.
• the Pilot should include an emergency response system coupled with regular check-ins, to respond to changes in someone’s income in a timely manner.

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Some groups suggested that:

• changes that participants would like to see include: improved health, housing stability, less homelessness, improved food security (e.g, less use of food banks), improved education, administrative efficiency, community-level changes, increased perception of citizenship, more opportunity, better life choices, improved perception of citizenship, improved quality of life, reduction in family violence, improved access and less service fragmentation, reduced crime rates
• the high cost of living in the North should be considered (e.g., given cost of flying in food)
• the Pilot contain less paperwork and bureaucracy than Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program
• the terms “life choices” and “work behaviour” should be defined, as some may perceive them to be offensive
• information related to the Pilot should be made public on an ongoing basis
• people could be encouraged to participate in the Pilot by: providing an income that is far more than what people currently have; providing education about the Pilot, including the option of opting out without penalties; reducing bureaucracy and barriers; reducing stigma; guaranteeing the privacy of personal information; creating an easy application process; advertising (e.g., buses, TV, radio, post notices in public housing); and using a system like the GST rebate
• people should feel that their personal information is safe by using non-identifiable/anonymous data and ensuring those who provide the information do not face any penalties
• many groups would be willing to share personal information even if they did not receive the Basic Income; however, some said only those with lived experience should answer this question
• pilot participants should receive their results prior to any public report release

North West Toronto Meeting

The North West Toronto public consultation was held on December 13, 2016 at the Toronto Congress Centre.

During the consultation, people took part in group discussions to share their ideas on five main areas about the Pilot. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 67 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Han Dong—MPP for Trinity-Spadina and Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister Responsible for Poverty Reduction and the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills—gave opening remarks and participated in the full session.

Shafiq Qaadri, MPP for Etobicoke-North, also gave opening remarks and stayed for part of the evening.

What we heard

At the beginning of the session, a request was made by some participants to raise the rates for social assistance.

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Several groups suggested that Pilot participants be diverse and include: single-parent families

• seniors
• people with disabilities
• people who live in public housing
• people in the LGBTQ community
• people receiving social assistance supports (e.g., Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program)
• people who do not receive social assistance, but have no income or a low income
• people with unstable or insecure employment

Additional suggestions included basing participation on:

• individual incomes, not family/household incomes
• family/household incomes, not individual family members’ incomes
• both individual and family/household incomes

There were also suggestions that Pilot participants could be selected by geographical area (e.g. an area with many low-income households).

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the location could include:

• urban, suburban and rural communities with varying population sizes and poverty rates
• communities in North, South and Central
• Indigenous communities

Other suggestions included choosing locations based on:

• demographics and areas with high diversity
• greatest need (e.g., areas with poor health statistics, high levels of poverty, limited access to housing)
• access to jobs

There was further discussion about the merits of an application process for interested communities. There were also suggestions about piloting in all locations at the same time, versus starting with fewer locations to work out operational problems first, before expanding to more communities.

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the basic income level:

• be high enough to lift people out of poverty
• should take the cost of living—by community—into consideration, noting the higher costs in northern Ontario
• account for access to other services and supports, such as availability of affordable housing

One group suggested positioning basic income as an incentive tied to earnings to raise people out of poverty.

Several groups also suggested that basic income be one component of a robust support system that includes:

• financial literacy training
• employment services
• social inclusion services
• food banks
• medical benefits
• housing and transportation subsidies

Several groups commented on the need to raise social assistance rates in addition to introducing a Basic Income Pilot.

How the Pilot should be delivered

Suggestions included:

• designing the Pilot as a Negative Income Tax (NIT), similar to the Ontario Tax Benefit
• not designing the pilot as a (NIT, because income could fluctuate throughout the year
• a universal income with a more progressive tax model that would remove stigma and stimulate the economy
• not tying basic income to income tax (because people would have to fill out more forms)
• not taxing back support, based on a person’s income
• having a tax back only at higher levels of income
• diverting any taxed-back income to savings, such as RRSPs, instead of going back to government

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested:

• most outcome areas were important but administrative efficiency was not
• information be made public on an ongoing basis, as long as participant privacy is protected
• the government should ensure participants are no worse off than before
• the privacy of participants is protected and participants have the option to continue with supports after the Pilot is complete
• participants be guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality
• participants should see the results before they are released publicly

Groups suggestions on sharing of personal information were mixed, with some very opposed to those who would share even if not receiving the benefit.
Other suggestions included:

• measuring a participant’s sense of dignity
• reducing use of justice system, lowering rates of domestic abuse and suicide
• assessing bureaucratic hurdles, access to childcare, transportation issues, levels of elder care

Kingston meeting

The Kingston public consultation was held on January 9, 2017 at the Ramada Kingston Hotel and Conference Centre.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas relating to the Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 86 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Han Dong, MPP for Trinity-Spadina and Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister Responsible for Poverty Reduction and the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, gave opening remarks and participated in the full session.

Sophie Kiwala, MPP for Kingston and the Islands, also gave opening remarks and participated in the full session.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Several groups suggested that the participant group be broad, diverse and include:

• people between the ages of 18 and 64
• low-wage earners

Some groups suggested that income levels – if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot – should be based on individual incomes rather than family or household incomes. Other groups suggested the opposite.

Groups also suggested that:

• pilot participants be selected by geographic area
• individuals should have lived in the selected area for at least 12 months to be eligible and continue participating if they leave the area

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot location(s) be representative of the province and could include:

• urban, suburban and rural communities with varying population sizes and poverty rates
• communities in the north and south

Other groups suggested choosing locations with:

• significant economic disparities
• municipalities that are supportive of the Pilot
• capacity to support the Pilot and any associated administrative costs
• good data about residents

This discussion also included a suggestion that people who live in a Pilot area could apply to participate.

Some groups also suggested that the pilot should take place in several locations at the same time, rather than taking a phased approach.

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level:

• be high enough to lift people out of poverty
• be tested at a minimum level of 100% of the Low Income Measure (LIM)
• take into account the cost of living in the area

Opinions were mixed about whether the Basic Income should replace benefits other than the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works. There was widespread agreement that individuals should not be worse off as a result of receiving the Basic Income.

Several groups also suggested that a Basic Income be one component of a robust support system that includes:

• affordable housing
• affordable and/or subsidized education
• affordable transit
• child care support
• financial literacy training
• employment services
• mental health and addictions support
• medical benefits
• food/nutrition education
• social inclusion services

How the Pilot should be delivered

Groups made a variety of suggestions about how to deliver the Pilot, including:

• designing the pilot as a Negative Income Tax (NIT), but allowing more flexibility to accommodate changes in an individual’s circumstances and allow for more frequent payments (e.g. monthly or bi-weekly)
• not designing the pilot as a NIT, as it may have the unintended effect of reducing an individual’s desire to work
• designing the Basic Income so that each person in the household receives a benefit independently,
• using the income tax system,
• using a system that already exists (e.g. Ontario Works) to deliver the program.

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• most of the Pilot’s outcomes listed in Mr. Segal’s paper  are important – particularly housing, food and health – but administrative efficiency is not
• information be made public on an ongoing basis, and the public should be invited to give input throughout the process
• information should not be made public, because if participants are aware they are being monitored, the data and/or lessons learned may not be broadly applicable
• the government ensure that participants are no worse off than before
• education and outreach are important to help people understand the goals and objectives of the Pilot, encourage people to participate, and help participants understand how their information will be used
• participants be guaranteed confidentiality
• participants receive the results before they are released publicly (while some suggested the opposite of this)
• the Pilot could measure changes in outcomes at an individual level and at the community level

Other suggestions included:

• keeping the Pilot as simple as possible
• using social administrative data as opposed to collecting personal information
• controls in place to prevent landlords from raising costs
• taking into account inflation and costs of living

Cobourg meeting

The Cobourg public consultation was held on January 11, 2017 at the Cobourg Community Centre.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas about the Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 35 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Ann Hoggarth, MPP for Barrie and Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, delivered opening remarks and attended for part of the session.

Lou Rinaldi, MPP for Northumberland-Quinte West and Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, also delivered opening remarks and participated in the full session.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Several groups suggested that the pilot group be broad, diverse and include:

• Ontarians from all demographic categories
• people between the ages of 18 and 64
• people who are between the ages of 16 and 18 (in addition to those 18-64)
• people who are living in shared accommodation
• people on social assistance (e.g. Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program)
• people who are underemployed or trying to enter the workforce (e.g. precariously employed, part-time workers)
• students
• seniors

As in previous sessions, some groups suggested that income levels – if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot – should be based on individual incomes, rather than family or household incomes. Other groups suggested the opposite.

Groups also suggested that the Pilot:

• include as many people as possible
• include people living in poverty
• test the best way to deliver the program
• be designed so that Basic Income recipients have good incentives to find a job

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot take place across the province and could include:

• urban and rural communities
• everyone who is in poverty
• communities in the greatest need (e.g. areas with poor health statistics, high levels of poverty, limited access to housing)

Several groups highlighted the ethical considerations of piloting a Basic Income because it would only be available for a small segment of the population and not to all people in poverty.

Some groups also suggested that, where the Pilot takes place, Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) caseworkers should be employed as part of the Basic Income Pilot.

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level:

• be high enough to lift people out of poverty
• be tested at a minimum level of 100% of the Low Income Measure (LIM)
• take into account the cost of living in the area (especially for Northern communities)

There was widespread agreement that if Basic Income replaces Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), it should not replace other benefits (e.g. dental, drug, assistance devices, medical transportation, vision care).

Several groups also suggested that a Basic Income could be one component of a robust support system that includes:

• expanded access to affordable housing and rent consistent with income
• housing cost supports (e.g. hydro, water)
• affordable and/or subsidized education, including post-secondary
• affordable transit (e.g. universal low-income transit pass)
• child care support (e.g. universal/subsidized childcare)
• elder care support
• communications support (e.g. phone and internet access)
• mental health and addictions support
• medical benefits
• food/nutrition education
• clothing support

How the Pilot should be delivered

Groups made a variety of suggestions about how to deliver the Pilot that included:

• using different models in different locations to test the effectiveness and efficiency of various delivery methods (e.g. Negative Income Tax, a universal Basic Income, “demi-grant”)
• not designing the Pilot as a Negative Income Tax
• using the income tax system, but allowing for more flexibility to accommodate people’s changing circumstances and for more frequent payments (e.g. monthly or bi-weekly)

Some groups suggested that if the Basic Income Pilot is provided through the income tax system, additional supports need to be provided to help people file their taxes.

As part of the Pilot design, some groups suggested that the needs of participants after the Pilot ends should be considered.

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• four of the outcome measurement areas (health, education, housing and food) are more important than the others, because improvements in these areas would likely improve other outcome measurement areas
• the Pilot measures changes experienced by all members of a household who participate in the Pilot, including children
• the Pilot should focus on access to childcare and post-secondary education, while recognizing the unique barriers that certain groups continue to experience (e.g. women)
• participants be given access to their information
• protocols be developed to ensure that people’s rights and privacy are protected and that participants cannot be personally identified
• participants receive the results before they are released publicly
• people be encouraged to participate in the Pilot by helping them to understand how their information will be used and by simplifying the application process
• the Pilot measure changes in outcomes at both an individual level and at the level of a whole community.

Other suggestions included measuring changes in the following key areas:

• healthcare wait times
• amount of new affordable housing
• need for food-bank support
• amount of enrolment in post-secondary and trade programs
• number of volunteers
• streamlined services

Kitchener meeting

The Kitchener public consultation was held on Friday, January 13, 2017 at Kitchener City Hall.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas relating to the Basic Income Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 145 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

The Honourable Chris Ballard, Minister of Housing and Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, delivered opening remarks.

Daiene Vernile, MPP Kitchener Centre; Kathryn McGarry, MPP Cambridge; and Catherine Fife, MPP Kitchener-Waterloo all attended part of the session.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

All groups suggested that the pilot group be broad, diverse and include:

• people between the ages of 16 and 64—in particular, teens who live independently and/or without family support
• people above the age of 64 (in addition to those ages 16 to 64)

Most groups suggested that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot—should be based on individual incomes, rather than household incomes, because:

• relationships between individuals living in a household can change
• it would provide individuals with more autonomy and choice (e.g., return to school, start a business)
• it would provide women in abusive relationships with the financial support to leave

One group suggested the opposite: that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot—should be based on household incomes rather than individual incomes.

Groups also suggested that:

• participants could be selected by geographic area
• the Pilot should be delivered in collaboration with the federal government
• the Pilot should test a Universal Basic Income

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot location(s) be representative of the province and could include:

• urban, suburban and rural communities with varying population sizes
• Indigenous communities, including at least one that is geographically isolated
• clients of the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)
• communities with multiple ethnicities
• communities in the north and south and, in particular, those with different costs of living than the majority of the province
• a community where the manufacturing sector has been adversely affected

Most groups suggested that the Pilot begin in all locations at the same time, because it will allow for more reliable comparisons as economies may change overtime.

One group suggested the Pilot take place in a location with a stable population.

One group suggested that individuals from across the Province be invited to apply to participate in the Pilot, rather than specific communities, and be added to the Pilot over time.

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level:

• be high enough to life people out of poverty
• be tested at 100% of the Low Income Measure
• be tested at 100% of the Low Income Cut-Off
• be tested at a living wage amount
• could test multiple amounts and compare results
• take into account the cost of living in the area
• should not make individuals worse off as a result of receiving the Basic Income

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income Pilot focus more on the method of delivery, rather than the actual amount.

Also, several groups suggested the Basic Income should not replace other benefits, such as Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works.

Other groups suggested that additional benefits are needed, such as:

• affordable transit
• affordable education
• child care support
• chiropractic services
• credit counselling
• dental care
• education and assistance understanding the Basic Income
• employment support
• eye care
• financial literacy training
• massage therapy
• medical benefits
• mental health and addictions support
• pharma care
• physiotherapy

How the Pilot should be delivered

Groups made a variety of suggestions about how to deliver the Pilot that included:

• designing the Pilot as a Negative Income Tax (NIT)
• not designing the Pilot as a NIT, as it adds extra barriers
• using a Universal Basic Income model instead of a NIT
• using the income tax system, and giving consideration to participants who do not file taxes
• using a progressive tax system and low tax-back rates
• continuing to deliver the pilot regardless of potential changes in government
• should be simple, reduce barriers, and be responsive to changes in an individual’s circumstances

Several groups suggested that the Pilot be used to test different models to determine benefits and challenges of each one.

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• most of the outcome measurements listed in Hugh Segal’s paper are important—particularly housing, food and health—and they should be measured at the community and individual level
• information related to the Pilot should be made public on an ongoing basis
• information related to the Pilot should not be made public if it could be negatively impacted
• people should be encouraged to participate in the Pilot by ensuring they will be no worse off than before, and reducing barriers to participation
• community outreach is important, particularly to engage people living in poverty and with low incomes
• participants’ privacy and confidentiality must be protected – several groups would be willing to share their personal information as long as they knew how the information would be used and were confident that it would not be attributable to individuals

Other suggestions included:

• creating a Pilot that is transparent and accessible and in which participants are treated fairly and equally
• being mindful of and reducing stigmas that may be attached to being a Pilot participant – helping participants preserve their dignity
• voluntary participation, not be based on a person’s address
• using best practices for research, including ethical guidelines, to maximize the likelihood of success for the Pilot

Oshawa meeting

The Oshawa public consultation was held on Monday, January 16, 2017 at the Jubilee Pavilion Banquet and Conference Center.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas relating to the Basic Income Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 98 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

The Honourable Chris Ballard, Minister of Housing and Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, delivered opening remarks.

Jennifer French, MPP Oshawa, and Granville Anderson, MPP Durham attended the full session.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

All groups suggested that the pilot group be broad, diverse and include people:

• between the ages of 16 and 64—in particular, teens who live independently and/or without family support
• above the age of 64 (in addition to those ages 16 to 64)
• receiving Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits
• living below the poverty line
• who are unemployed
• who require child care support
• who cannot afford to pay for medical expenses

Most groups suggested that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot—should be based on individual incomes, rather than household incomes, because:

• relationships between individuals living in a household can change
• it would provide individuals with more autonomy and independence
• it would provide those in abusive relationships more opportunity to leave
• it is administratively easier to evaluate an individual, rather than family situations

Two groups suggested the opposite: that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot—should be based on household incomes rather than individual incomes.

Groups also suggested that:

• participants could be selected by geographic area
• the Pilot be universal and accessible to everyone
• the Pilot should not exclude those who do not file income taxes
• the Pilot should also support the needs of the middle class, in additional to low-income individuals, in the interest of economic development
• the Pilot should choose participants who best understand the community

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot location(s) be representative of the province and could include:

• urban and rural communities
• northern and southern communities
• Indigenous communities
• a cross-section of people that is representative of the whole province

One group suggested the Pilot should not include towns that have one major employer. Another group suggested the Pilot take place in a town that previously had a strong manufacturing industry.

Most groups suggested that the Pilot begin in all locations at the same time, so it does not delay participants from receiving the benefit and to limit any variation that might result from staggered timelines.

Several groups suggested that communities with the most need should be chosen first. One group suggested that areas with the highest cost of living be chosen first. Some suggested that locations across the province be invited to submit applications to participate in the Pilot.

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level:

• be high enough to both lift people out of poverty and provide them with a modest amount of income to go with earnings and other benefits
• be enough to help people stay out of poverty
• should not penalize participants, regardless of whether they choose to work or not

One group suggested the child tax benefit should be used as a model.

Several groups suggested the Basic Income should not replace other benefits, such as Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works. Some groups suggested that the Basic Income encompass all benefits and supports.

Suggestions for other important services that are needed to go with a Basic Income include:

• advocacy support
• affordable food
• affordable housing and hydro
• affordable transit
• caseworker support
• child care
• dental care
• employment support
• life skills support
• pharmacare
• mental health support
• system navigation support
• vision care

Other suggestions included:

• considering the Pilot’s impact on an individual’s ability to participate in the community, their sense of social inclusion and ability to attain a higher quality of life
• creating a Pilot that is flexible to adjust for cost of living and inflation
• ensuring that existing benefits and services remain in the public sector and are not contracted out/privatized
• preventing rents from being raised by landlords

How the Pilot should be delivered

Groups made a variety of suggestions about how to deliver the Pilot, including:

• designing the Pilot as a Negative Income Tax (NIT)
• using a Universal Basic Income model
• investigating other Pilot options

One group suggested that the objective of the Pilot be clear before it is designed (e.g. reducing poverty versus preparing people for the workforce).

Opinions were mixed about whether the Basic Income should be provided outside of the income tax system. Some groups suggested that if the income tax system is used, additional consideration should be given to participants who do not file taxes. Some groups suggested using an alternative agency that liaises with the income tax system. Some groups suggested using the current social assistance system or a direct deposit system to administer payments.

Several groups suggested that the delivery of the Pilot should be simple, reduce barriers and be flexible enough to respond to changes in an individual’s circumstances.

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• all of the Pilot’s outcomes listed in Hugh Segal’s paper are important – particularly housing, food and health
• information related to the Pilot should be made public on an ongoing basis
• people could be encouraged to participate through advertising, education about the Pilot, assurances that supports would be in place after the Pilot, and incentives to participate
• participants’ privacy and confidentiality must be protected – several groups said they would be willing to share their personal information as long as they knew how the information would be used and were confident that it would not be attributable to specific individuals.

All groups suggested creating a Pilot that measures outcomes at both an individual level and at the community level, as they are both important and impact each other.

Most groups believed that Pilot participants should receive their results prior to any public report release.

Groups suggested that indicators of the Pilot’s success could include:

• increased choice (e.g. option to go to work)
• increased employment
• increased enrollment in school and graduation rates
• increased entrepreneurial activity
• improved mental health
• increased volunteerism
• fewer emergency department visits/hospitalizations
• fewer food bank visits
• reduced crime rates
• reduced homelessness
• reduced administrative burden

Other suggestions included:

• creating a Pilot that is transparent and accessible and in which participants are treated fairly and equally
• being mindful of and reducing stigmas that may be attached to being a Pilot participant – helping participants preserve their dignity
• voluntary participation, not be based on a person’s address
• using best practices for research, including ethical guidelines, to maximize the likelihood of success for the Pilot

Kenora meeting

The Kenora public consultation was held on January 17, 2017 at the Kenora Recreation Centre.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas relating to the Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 33 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

The Honourable Chris Ballard, Minister of Housing and Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, delivered opening remarks and participated in the session.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Several groups suggested that the pilot group be broad, diverse and include people:

• between the ages of 18 and 64
• who are outside of Hugh Segal’s proposed eligibility age range of 18-64 (e.g. youth with no housing, seniors with no benefit support)
• living in different geographic regions, in particular individuals from northern communities who experience a higher cost of living (e.g. food and transportation)
• from First Nations communities
• living in isolated and/or fly-in communities
• living below the poverty line
• who receive social assistance (e.g. Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program)
• who do not receive social assistance but have low income
• who are underemployed or trying to enter the workforce (e.g. working poor, new-comers and immigrants)

Most groups suggested that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot—should be based on individual incomes, rather than household incomes, because:

• relationships between individuals living in a household can change
• it would ensure that all non-dependents within a household experience the same opportunities and freedoms
• it would be unfair to communities where housing is a challenge and people are forced to share accommodation (e.g. First Nations communities)

Two groups suggested the opposite: that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot—should be based on household incomes rather than individual incomes. They added that the term “whole family’s income” be clearly defined.

Where the Pilot should take place

All groups suggested the Pilot take place across the province and could include:

• urban and suburban with varying population sizes
• rural communities, in particular communities across Northern Ontario
• Indigenous communities, including at least one that is geographically isolated
• communities that have varying degrees of individuals who receive social assistance (e.g. through Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works)

Two groups suggested that the Pilot begin in all locations at the same time, because it will ensure a greater chance of success for the program.

One group suggested that the Pilot begin in a few locations at first to ensure it is running properly before launching it across the province.

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level:

• be high enough to lift people out of poverty
• be a supplemental income
• be tested at a minimum level of 75% of the Low Income Measure (LIM)
• provide an adequate amount of income to go with earnings and other benefits
• take into account the cost of living in the area (especially for Northern communities)

There was widespread agreement that if Basic Income replaces Ontario Works and ODSP, it should not replace other benefits because these are key to people’s success (e.g. non-insured health benefits, prescription drug coverage).

All groups also suggested that when determining the Basic Income amount, the cost of living should be taken into consideration and that the LIM be reviewed annually. Several groups also suggested that a Basic Income be one component of a robust support system that is client focused, and includes:

• life skills programs to assist in breaking the poverty cycle (e.g. Getting Ahead program)
• transit services
• healthy living/coping skills supports
• child care support (e.g. universal/subsidized childcare)
• mental health and addictions support (e.g. access to counsellors)
• affordable housing
• supports for people with disabilities who cannot work
• housing cost supports (e.g. hydro, water)
• culturally appropriate supports
• dental and medical benefits

How the Pilot should be delivered

Groups made a variety of suggestions about how to deliver the Pilot, including:

• designing the Pilot as a continuation of the Canada Child Tax Benefit or Old Age Security system
• designing the Pilot as a Universal Basic Income model instead of a Negative Income Tax
• that the delivery model encourage people to work and go to school

Groups also said that there are strengths and weaknesses in every model, but it is important to pick one model and get started.

One group suggested that the Basic Income Pilot be provided outside of the income tax system, as it would be less complicated and not as expensive.

Another group suggested that the Basic Income Pilot be provided as part of the income tax system, as it can leverage existing infrastructure. However, this group also suggested that special consideration be given to vulnerable populations, or individuals who do not file their income taxes.

Several groups suggested that the delivery model be flexible enough to respond to changes in an individual’s circumstances.

One group also suggested that anything earned below a lowincome marker should not be clawed back immediately, but rather gradually over time. This group also suggested there not be any conditions around receiving basic income.

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• most of the Pilot’s outcomes listed in Hugh Segal’s paper are important – particularly health, housing, food and health
• justice outcomes, such as recidivism rates, should be measured
• people should be encouraged to participate in the Pilot by offering them more money, explaining the benefits of participation (e.g., that it has potential to provide people with increased freedom and dignity), and ensuring service providers receive education about the Pilot
• the Pilot be evaluated at the level of a whole community so that results are not skewed to only those individuals who are invited to participate
• the evaluation approach should ensure that participants only have to tell their story once to reduce stigma
• the evaluation approach should ensure participants are able to provide informed consent (e.g., application of Ownership Access Control Permission model)
• participants should receive the results through a briefing before they are released publicly
• participants’ privacy and confidentiality should be protected – several groups would be willing to share their personal information as long as they knew how the information will be used and were confident that it would not be attributable to specific individuals. Other groups were uncertain about sharing their information.

Most groups suggested creating a Pilot that measures changes to a whole community, because they thought that the government will be less likely to focus on anecdotal successes at the individual level. One group discussed creating a Pilot that measures changes in people’s outcomes at both an individual level and at the community level.

Some groups felt that information related to the Pilot should be made public on an ongoing basis as it would ensure transparency. Other groups suggested the opposite, as it might skew results or put pressures on the Pilot.

Other suggestions included measuring changes in the following key areas:

• school attendance and truancy rates
• healthcare wait times
• number of visits to the emergency department
• rate of diabetes
• access to eye care and dentistry
• access to prescription medication
• access to urgent care
• need for food bank support
• access to affordable housing
• quality of affordable housing
• percentage of income spent on rent
• need for emergency shelter support
• participant perception of mental health

One group also suggested that all measured outcomes should be culturally appropriate to participants.

Sault Ste. Marie meeting

The Sault Ste. Marie public consultation was held on Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at the Delta Hotel.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas relating to the Basic Income Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 75 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

The Honourable Chris Ballard, Minister of Housing and Minister Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, delivered opening remarks.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Groups suggested that the pilot group be broad, diverse and include:

• all Ontario residents
• those in greatest need
• single people
• people who are underemployed
• people on Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)
• First Nations, especially in northern and remote communities

Opinions were mixed about whether income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the pilot—should be based on individual incomes, household incomes or both. Groups in favour of basing it on individual incomes said this could help people leave abusive relationships. Groups in favour of basing it on household incomes said:

• household income should only include adult earners over the age of 18
• families should include single parents and single earners
• families with two earners may still be living under the poverty line

Groups also suggested that:

• everyone should be eligible for the pilot, to ensure fairness
• participants should be selected randomly
• eligibility criteria should not include area of residency
• it’s hard for a single person to cover the costs of housing—this should be taken into consideration when deciding whether the pilot should be based on an individual’s income or total family income

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot location(s) be representative of the province and could include:

• all communities, as poverty exists across the province
• northern and southern communities
• urban and rural communities
• Indigenous communities
• areas facing challenges
• areas with the most need
• areas of high unemployment

Important factors to consider when choosing a Pilot location include:

• cost of living
• access to services
• employment options

There were mixed opinions on how the Pilot location should be chosen. Some groups suggested that there should be a voluntary application process, because the Pilot is an experiment and people should provide consent.

One group suggested that Pilot location should be chosen randomly.

Most groups suggested that the Pilot begin in all locations at the same time to:

• avoid a delay in participants getting the benefit
• get three full years’ worth of data
• limit the amount of variation in the study arising from differing timelines

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level be high enough to:

• lift people out of poverty
• meet the costs of basic needs and shelter in one’s community
• provide a modest amount of income to go with earnings and other benefits

All groups suggested the Basic Income should not replace other benefits, such as Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works, and that additional benefits are needed.

Suggestions for other important services that are needed to go with a Basic Income include:

• addictions and mental health support
• affordable food/diets
• affordable transportation
• case management support
• child care
• dental care
• drug coverage
• education support
• employment support
• health care benefits
• housing support
• life skills support
• support worker services

Other suggestions included:

• creating a Pilot that is flexible to adjust for cost of living
• determining how and/or who would be providing discretionary supports
• creating rent controls

How the Pilot should be delivered

Groups made a variety of suggestions about how to deliver the Pilot, including:

• universal payment method
• top-up model
• percentage of income tax

Most groups suggested that Basic Income should be provided outside of the income tax system. Some groups suggested that if the income tax system is used, additional consideration should be given to participants who do not file taxes.

Groups also suggested that if it is a tax-based program, it should be consistent with the treatment of income for other benefit programs. Several groups suggested consideration be given to certain populations, including Indigenous peoples and seasonal workers.

One group suggested using Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSM) and the District of Thunder Bay Social Services Administration Board (DTBSSAB) to determine eligibility. Suggestions for getting payments to individuals included:

• electronically
• direct deposit
• regular payments (e.g. biweekly, monthly) that respond to changes in an individual’s circumstances

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• all of the Pilot’s outcomes listed in Hugh Segal’s paper are important – particularly housing, food, education and health
• information related to the Pilot should be made public on an ongoing basis
• people can be encouraged to participate through honest and open dialogue and by providing incentives, educating people about the Pilot and not removing other supports for people who participate
• one group suggested using public notices, advertising and email to encourage groups to participate
• participants’ privacy and confidentiality must be protected – several groups said they would be willing to share their personal information as long as they knew how the information would be used, that it was anonymous and was collected in an ethical manner
• there were mixed opinions on whether participants would be willing to share their personal information if they did not receive the basic income
• most groups believed that Pilot participants should receive their results prior to any public report release

All groups suggested creating a Pilot that measures changes in people’s outcomes at both an individual level and at the level of a whole community, as they are both important and impact each other.

Groups suggested that indicators of the Pilot’s success could include:

• ability to make more and better life choices
• ability to afford basic needs (e.g. electricity, water)
• administrative efficiency
• improved education
• improved health
• increased access to primary care and preventative services, including dental
• increased employment
• increased safety
• food security
• housing security
• improved social inclusion
• less homelessness
• reduced crime rates
• reduced domestic violence
• reduced food bank usage
• reduced emergency visits
• reduced poverty
• reduction in need for social services

Other suggestions included:

• raising the social assistance rates immediately
• ensuring participants are not stigmatized, and are able to have their needs met in a dignified manner
• ensuring that Pilot participants are not worse off
• either allowing everyone to be eligible for the Pilot or not to do it at all

Thunder Bay meeting

The Thunder Bay public consultation was held on January 19, 2017 at the Victoria Inn.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas relating to the Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 76 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Chris Ballard, Minister of Housing and Minister Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, delivered opening remarks and participated in the session.

Michael Gravelle, MPP for Thunder Bay and Superior North and Minister of Northern Development and Mines, also delivered opening remarks and participated in the session.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Several groups suggested that Pilot group be broad, diverse and include:

• everyone
• people aged 16 to 64
• people under the age of 18 who are eligible for Ontario Works
• people living in Thunder Bay with income below the Low Income Measure (LIM)
• people living below the poverty line
• the elderly
• the working poor
• First Nations who are off-reserve
• people engaged in precarious work
• people who require treatment for addictions

Most groups suggested that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot—should be based on individual incomes, rather than household incomes, because:

• if based on household income and a family member leaves the home permanently, that could be detrimental to the rest of the family
• people should not feel pressure to enter or leave relationships as a result of their financial situation

One group felt that, while participation in the Pilot should be based on individual incomes, participation should take into account the number of children in the family under the age of 18 and be topped up accordingly.

Groups also suggested that:

• the Pilot participants should be selected based on geography
• a minimum residency requirement should not be used as an eligibility criterion, because many people enter and exit Thunder Bay
• there should not be a working requirement to be eligible

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot location(s) be representative of the province and could include:

• northern and southern communities
• a rural community
• Indigenous communities
• Thunder Bay and District, as it has a mix of northern, southern, rural, urban and Indigenous groups, and is large enough to provide statistically significant results
• diverse ethnic communities
• medium-sized communities
• communities with a mix of public and private sector employers
• a First Nations reserve case study

Several groups suggested Pilot locations be chosen based on communities:

• that have expressed interest
• where need exists
• where the most vulnerable are located
• where there is unemployment
• where effects and outcomes can be measured
• that can be highly engaged
• identified in consultation with First Nations leaders

Some groups suggested that the Pilot begin in all locations at the same time to more easily compare and evaluate results. Some groups suggested starting the Pilot in a few locations (no more than four) before implementing it across the province.

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level:

• should be high enough to lift people out of poverty and/or provide a modest amount of income to go with earnings and other benefits
• should also provide health benefits
• should provide enough for basic needs
• should be enough to help the working poor
• should be at least 75% of the Low Income Measure (LIM), provide an additional $500 to people with disabilities, and include food and childcare costs
• should be enough to help those with precarious employment

Some groups suggested that the Basic Income should replace other benefits, such as Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), labour-related benefits, Employment Insurance (EI), Old Age Security (OAS), Workers Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits, Canada Pension Plan (CPP), and Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP). Some groups suggested the Basic Income should not replace other benefits such as EI, old age programs, housing and child benefits.

Additional services and supports suggested to go with a Basic Income include:

• capacity development
• case management
• counselling
• community development
• dental care
• disability support services
• emergency care
• employment support
• financial literacy training
• food and special diet subsidies
• free post-secondary education
• free school lunches
• health and medical care
• housing support
• life skills
• mental health support
• residential moving expense coverage
• pharma care
• retraining costs
• rent controls
• services for prison inmates
• transportation subsidies
• vision care

Groups also suggested considering:

• the cost of living of different areas
• ensuring the Basic Income amount is adjusted for inflation over time
• the impact on seasonal workers
• the number of dependants in the family unit
• what happens when people transition from Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)
• not penalizing people for working
• not penalizing people for having assets such as a house, car or Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRPS)
• doing a study on the effects of Basic Income on those older than 64 years

How the Pilot should be delivered

Several groups suggested that:

• the Pilot should be designed as a universal Basic Income, and some suggested it could be tied to birth registration so that it is automatically set up for all people when they turn 18
• the Pilot should not be designed as a Negative Income Tax, as this model might not reflect changes to a person’s income during the year and may create challenges for people living in poverty who have difficulty creating a budget
• the Pilot should be delivered through the income tax system as it would encourage people to file their taxes
• the Pilot should not be delivered through the income tax system as it would create barriers for:
  • people who do not file income tax
  • people living on a First Nations reserve as they do not pay income tax
  • people living in remote areas
• the delivery model should:
  • encourage people to save
  • ensure people can easily reinstate the Basic Income support after institutionalization
  • be designed as a monthly benefit, with some suggesting it could be based on a person’s income from the previous year
  • be designed so that if a participant’s income is below a certain level, they don’t have to pay tax
  • allow people to apply at any time during the year for the Basic Income
  • be responsive to changes in family status and employment
• the delivery model should not:
  • respond to changes in a person’s income as this defeats the purpose of a basic income and discourages people from getting a job
  • reduce the amount of rent subsidy benefit received if a person’s income increases
• the Pilot should be delivered by direct deposit, or through a pre-paid credit card, through the mail or a post office box as these options minimize stigma and bureaucracy

Groups also suggested that:

• it would not be fair to have a control group that is receiving fewer benefits than other groups
• people may not be able to afford transportation or have access to a computer to register for the Pilot

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• all of the Pilot’s outcomes listed in Hugh Segal’s paper are important, while others suggested that specific outcome areas more important – in particular, health, education, food and housing
• information related to the Pilot should be made public on an ongoing basis as transparency is important, while others suggested they were unsure of this and needed more information
• the government review results of other studies about the benefits of a Basic Income
• people be encouraged to participate in the Pilot by:
  • targeting communication to people who receive social assistance
  • general communication through media outlets
  • promoting the importance, value and benefit of the Pilot program for individuals and the community
  • providing more money
  • helping people to understand how their information will be used
  • simplifying the application process
  • providing success stories
  • notifying Chiefs in First Nations communities
• they would not be comfortable sharing their personal information if they did not receive the Basic Income, while others said they would be willing to share this information if it is protected through privacy acts, their information is anonymized, guaranteed to be safe and secure and the benefits of sharing are well understood
• Pilot participants should not receive Pilot results prior to a public report release, while others said the opposite.

Several groups suggested creating a Pilot that measures changes in people’s outcomes at both an individual level and at the level of a whole community, as they affect each other.

Other suggestions included measuring changes in the following key areas:

• community safety (e.g. crime rates and number of incarcerations) quality of life (e.g. amount of time spent with family or dedicated to the creative arts)
• mental health and addictions changes (e.g. sense of well-being, self-worth and confidence)
• quality and amount of education (e.g. high school and postsecondary graduation rates)
• access to vegetables and fruit
• changes in the economy
• number of people who have housing and food security
• visits to hospital and doctors’ offices
• need for food bank support
• need for child care
• amount of community involvement
• amount of road rage
• amount of stress from dealing with bureaucracy
• ability to cope and provide for family
• work ethic

Ottawa meeting

The Ottawa public consultation was held on January 24, 2017 at the Ottawa Conference Centre.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas relating to the Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 121 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Minister of Community and Social Services, Dr. Helena Jaczek, delivered opening remarks.

Nathalie Des Rosiers, MPP for Ottawa—Vanier and Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Housing and the Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues, also delivered opening remarks and participated in the session.

Yasir Naqvi, Attorney General and MPP for Ottawa Centre, also attended the session, as well as John Fraser, MPP for Ottawa South and Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Groups suggested that the pilot group be broad, diverse and include:

• all Ontario residents between the ages of 18 and 64
• emancipated youth aged 16 and older
• families with young children
• people living below the poverty line
• people who receive social assistance (e.g. Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program)
• people who do not receive social assistance but have low incomes people who are underemployed or trying to enter the workforce (e.g. working poor, newcomers, and immigrants).

Most groups suggested that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot—should be based on individual incomes, rather than household incomes, because:

• relationships between individuals living in a household can change
• it would provide flexibility and security in the event that family cohabitation status or family size changes over time
• it would better support those in abusive relationships

A few groups suggested the opposite: that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot—should be based on a whole family’s income to account for income variations within families.

Groups also suggested the Pilot’s sample size be large enough to represent the Ontario population, and not be restricted to a single community.

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot location(s) be representative of the province and could include:

• northern and southern communities
• urban and rural communities (based on population size)
• Indigenous communities that are both on- and off-reserve
• areas with the most need
• areas with high unemployment rates
• areas that have significant populations of both low- and middle-income people

Some groups suggested that serious consideration be given to the costs of living and population sizes in the communities chosen for the Pilot.

Opinions were mixed as to whether the Pilot location should be chosen at random or by community application.

Some groups suggested there be a process to ensure that municipalities chosen to participate in the Pilot are supportive and have the capacity to implement it.

All groups suggested the Pilot should start at multiple locations simultaneously to:

• gather a larger amount of data
• ensure representation from a large sample of the population
• limit the amount of variation in Pilot results arising from differing implementation timelines

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level be:

• high enough to lift people out of poverty (e.g. 75% to 100% of the Low Income Measure)
• clawed back for individuals with high income levels, similar to the approach used for determining the level of Old Age Security
• calculated using a simple formula
• tailored to an individual’s needs (e.g. take into consideration need for glasses, medicine, wheelchairs)
• high enough that recipients use no more than 30% of their income to pay for housing
• made available through a single entry point
• determined using the federal government’s definition of the poverty level
• adjusted annually for inflation and determined based on changes in the Consumer Price Index

Several groups suggested that, if the Basic Income replaces Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), it should only replace the basic needs and shelter components, not other benefits. Another group suggested that all other benefits, outside of health care benefits, should be replaced.

One group suggested that the rental and home energy credits made available through the Ontario Trillium Benefit should be replaced while the relief for sales and property tax credit should not.

Several groups suggested that when determining the Basic Income amount, cost of living should be taken into account, with specific consideration for:

• geographic region
• cost of living in rural versus urban areas
• disabilities
• number of dependents

Several groups also suggested that a Basic Income be one component of a robust support system that is client focused and includes:

• mental health and addictions support (e.g. access to counsellors)
• life skills programs to assist in financial planning
• child care support
• affordable housing
• transportation supports
• healthcare supports, including drug, dental and vision care
• food and nutrition education and support
• funeral support
• support for post-secondary tuition

How the Pilot should be delivered

Groups made a variety of suggestions about how to deliver the Pilot, including designing it:

• as a Negative Income Tax
• as a Universal Basic Income because it would reduce complications and take less time
• as a top-up program, similar to the Guaranteed Income Supplement program, and adjusted on a monthly basis, similar to ODSP
• as a government paid benefit, similar to the child tax benefit
• using the income tax system, but allowing for more flexibility and responsiveness to changes in a person’s income and circumstances
• to allow for monthly or bi-weekly payments

Some groups suggested that if the income tax system is used, additional consideration should be given to participants who do not file taxes. Other groups suggested the Pilot be provided outside of the income tax system, but administered by the Canada Revenue Agency.

One group suggested the Pilot be delivered through a clustered experimentation approach, where some neighborhoods participate in the pilot, while others do not (and act as a control group). This was suggested as an alternative to a randomized controlled trial or saturation experimentation approach.

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• most of the Pilot’s outcomes listed in Hugh Segal’s paper are important – particularly health, housing, food and education
• information related to the Pilot should be made public on an ongoing basis (a few groups suggested the opposite)
• dignity and children’s outcomes be added to the key measurement area list
• people be encouraged to participate in the Pilot by:
  • offering them more money
  • being transparent about the purpose of the Pilot, in particular, explaining that it provides the basis for further research
  • emphasizing that it will reduce government waste
  • demonstrating the difference between the Basic Income Pilot and Ontario Works and ODSP
  • explaining that support will be provided to participants after the Pilot ends
  • discussing the benefits of participation in the Pilot (e.g. that it has potential to provide people with increased freedom and dignity)
• the evaluation approach ensures participants are able to provide informed consent
• participants’ privacy and confidentiality be protected – several groups said they would be willing to share their personal information as long as it is anonymized, while other groups were uncertain about sharing their information.

Most groups suggested creating a Pilot that measures changes in outcomes at both an individual level and community level, as they are both important and impact each other.

One group suggested that a Pilot may not be long enough to measure community level changes.

One group suggested the process for selecting key measurement areas is too presumptive because the most important issues appear to have already been selected. This group also suggested that administrative efficiency is the most important measurement area and that information technology issues need to be minimized throughout the Pilot process.

Another group suggested that life choices and the ability to pursue new opportunities, such as starting a family or returning to school, are the most important outcome measurement areas.

One group suggested that participants should be able to opt-in to sharing their personal information.

Other suggestions included measuring changes in the following key areas:

• number of visits to the emergency department
• number of sick days
• school enrolment, attendance and graduation rates
• labour participation and unemployment rates
• economic activity
• civic participation rates
• applications to social services (e.g. number of subsidized housing applicants)
• need for food bank support
• overall program costs relative to the costs of the programs which were replaced
• caseworker time spent on administrative tasks versus frontline services
• perceptions of safety, security and belonging
• changes in health indicators
• impact on family relationships (e.g. divorce rates, arguments resulting from financial pressures)

Windsor meeting

The Windsor public consultation was held on January 30, 2017 at the University of Windsor, Vanier Hall.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas relating to the Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 71 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Dr. Helena Jaczek, Minister of Community and Social Services, delivered opening remarks and participated in the session.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Several groups suggested that the pilot group be broad, diverse and include:

• all individuals in a selected area
• all individuals below a specific income bracket or below the poverty line
• emancipated youth 16 and older
• seniors

Some groups suggested that eligibility should not be based on length of residency in Ontario or length of time spent in the selected Pilot location.

All groups agreed that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the pilot—should be based on individual incomes, as opposed to family/household incomes, because it:

• allows for greater flexibility if a family/household composition changes
• gives people the opportunity to manage their expenses as they see fit
• doesn’t assume that income is distributed evenly within a household

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot location(s) be representative of the province and could include:

• urban and rural communities
• demographically diverse communities
• communities with the highest poverty rates
• communities with the highest historical and current unemployment rates
• communities with diverse employers
• Indigenous communities
• between 10 and 12 communities

Some groups suggested that consideration should be given to the cost of living, age demographics and existing support services in the communities chosen for the Pilot.

Opinions were mixed about whether people from across the province should be chosen for the Pilot, or if specific communities should be chosen.

One group suggested communities should be selected if they have:

• been affected by job loss
• many low income households
• both urban and rural areas

Most groups suggested that locations should be chosen based on applications from the community, as that would ensure community buy-in and availability of support services prior to pilot implementation.

Most groups also suggested the Pilot should start at multiple locations simultaneously to:

• ensure uniform data collection
• provide a greater amount of data over a short timeline

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level:

• be high enough to lift people out of poverty
• provide a modest amount of income to go with earnings and other benefits (i.e. it should provide a higher quality of life, beyond basic needs such as food and shelter)
• be high enough for individuals to be able to cover the costs of basic necessities, so that they can break the cycle of poverty
• be tested at a minimum level of 100% of the Low Income Measure (LIM), as this still only provides a modest level of income to cover all expenses
• should not be clawed back when individuals find employment
• be indexed to the Nutritious Food Basket used to track the cost of health eating and average cost of rent in a particular region
• be responsive to individual needs
• be adjusted annually for inflation

Several groups suggested that if the Basic Income replaces Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), it should not replace other benefits, as even at 100% of the LIM, benefits provided through Ontario Works and ODSP would not be affordable (e.g. drug, dental).

Another group suggested that Employment Insurance benefits should be replaced.

One group suggested that if the Basic Income level is set at 75% of the LIM, then people should also be able to apply for Ontario Works and ODSP for 25% additional ‘top-up’ support.

Several groups also suggested that when determining the Basic Income amount, the cost of living should be taken into account, with specific consideration for:

• geographic region
• cost of living in Northern communities
• rent costs
• number of dependents
• family composition
• employment situation and ability to work

Several groups suggested that a Basic Income should be one component of a robust support system that is client focused and includes:

• prescription and dental benefits
• vision care
• childcare support
• mental health services
• food and nutrition support (e.g. special diet allowance)
• transportation subsidies (e.g. transit pass)
• tuition, and training support (e.g. General Education Development completion support)
• housing
• visits to health services and support agencies
• life skills support (e.g. budgeting, employment seeking, family planning)
• increased access to all social assistance services

How the Pilot should be delivered

Groups made a variety of suggestions about how to deliver the Pilot, including designing the Pilot:

• as a Negative Income Tax
• as a Universal Basic Income, instead of a Negative Income Tax, because it would:
  • be easier and more efficient to administer
  • be too similar to the current system
  • be less complicated
  • reduce stigma
• in collaboration with financial institutions/government agencies (e.g. Canada Revenue Agency)
• to ensure that no one is left behind
• to allow people to qualify for a full year of Basic Income support
• to allow for flexible reporting, adaptable benefits and no wait times
• to allow for monthly or bi-weekly payments
• to be responsive to changes in a person’s income
• to provide supports to people with intellectual disabilities
• with no claw-back provision
• with an appeals process

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income Pilot be provided outside of the income tax system, as the income tax system:

• will not be responsive to changes in a person’s income
• creates barriers for people with no fixed address or who don’t file income taxes
• will not be able to provide recipients with system navigation support

Another group suggested that Ontario Works could act as an alternative delivery agent to the income tax system.

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• all of the Pilot’s outcomes listed in Hugh Segal’s paper are important – particularly housing, food, education and health
• the terms “life choices” and “work behaviour” should be clarified or changed, as some may perceive them to be offensive
• information related to the Pilot should be made public on an ongoing basis (a few groups suggested the opposite)
• the evaluation approach take into consideration local and regional needs
• people be encouraged to participate in the Pilot through advertising, by assuring them they will be no worse off than before and by providing a guaranteed higher income
• evaluation criteria be selected based on what can be reliably measured over a three-year timeframe
• the privacy of participants should be protected and participants have the option to continue with supports after the Pilot is complete
• people should feel that their personal information is safe by using non-identifiable/anonymous data and ensuring those who provide the information do not face any penalties
• the individuals responsible for collecting participant data receive cultural sensitivity training

One group suggested that transportation be added as a key outcome measurement area.

All groups suggested creating a Pilot that measures outcomes at both an individual level and at the community level, as they are both important and impact each other.

Another group suggested that all participants be compensated for their time, even those who are part of the control group. This group suggested that control group participants could be compensated for their time at the end of the study.

Other suggestions included measuring changes in the following key areas:

• changes to health outcomes and quality of life
• repeat service user rates
• crime rates
• changes to social services reporting requirements and assessments
• timely access to medical services (including dental)
• visits to the emergency department
• diabetes rate
• access to affordable housing and rent consistent with income
• percentage of applications to the Landlord and Tenant Board
• number of individuals who experience homelessness
• housing satisfaction and eviction rates
• access to skills training and transportation supports
• access to education (e.g. high school graduation and post-secondary participation rates)
• level of debt after post-secondary graduation
• number of payday loan service providers in a region (e.g. “cash stops”)
• number of temporary employment agencies
• use of recreational centres
• changes/interruptions to other benefits and supports
• access to healthy food
• use of food banks

London meeting

The London public consultation was held on January 31, 2017 at Goodwill Industries.

Participants shared their ideas about five main areas relating to the Basic Income Pilot in small group discussions. Each group then had a chance to share their key ideas with the rest of the participants.

Attendance

The session was attended by 91 participants representing various community organizations and local interests.

Dr. Helena Jaczek, Minister of Community and Social Services, delivered opening remarks.

What we heard

Who should be eligible for the Pilot

Several groups suggested that the pilot group be broad, diverse and include:

• all people in a selected region
• people who have been Ontario residents for at least one year
• landed immigrants in Canada
• people on Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)
• people living below the poverty line
• couples earning less than $50,000 combined annually
• single parents and families with children
• households that include family members with disabilities
• emancipated youth aged 16 and older
• people between the ages of 55 and 65
• seniors

As in previous sessions, some groups suggested that income levels – if used to determine who is eligible for the Pilot – should be based on individual incomes, rather than family or household incomes. Other groups suggested the opposite.

Groups that suggested basing it on individual incomes provided the following reasons:

• it would provide greater flexibility and security in the event that family cohabitation status and/or size changes over time
• it would provide those in abusive relationships more opportunity to leave
• most social assistance recipients are single-parent families

A few groups suggested that income level—if used to determine who is eligible for the pilot—should be based on both individual incomes and household incomes. In addition, the pilot should be able to respond quickly to changes in family composition.

Some groups also suggested the Pilot’s sample size be large enough to accurately represent the Ontario population.

Where the Pilot should take place

Several groups suggested the Pilot location(s) be representative of the province and could include:

• urban and rural communities in both northern and southern Ontario
• First Nations and Indigenous communities in both northern and southern Ontario
• communities with a large number of ODSP recipients
• communities without one large local employer
• demographically diverse communities

A few groups suggested the London area should be selected as a Pilot location because it:

• has a large number of residents who receive ODSP and other income support benefits
• is a mid-size city with adjacent rural communities
• has a diverse population

Most groups suggested that locations should be chosen based on community application, as this would ensure:

• buy-in and interest
• the community has the capacity and support services to implement the Pilot

Other groups suggested that as long as a community is representative of other Ontario communities and has residents who meet the Pilot eligibility criteria, selection of communities should be random and/or based on a saturation site model.

Most groups also suggested the Pilot should start at multiple locations simultaneously in order to:

• evaluate results under the same conditions, such as seasonal employment
• provide a greater amount of data

One group suggested that the Pilot should start in one community to ensure it operates safely and effectively before rolling it out to other communities.

What the Basic Income level should be

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income level be:

• high enough to lift people out of poverty
• low enough to provide an incentive to find employment
• provided at a minimum level that does not change relative to earnings
• tested at 100% of the Low Income Measure (LIM) or just above
• tested at multiple levels to allow for comparison between results (e.g. 75%, 100% and 125% of the LIM)
• determined using a simplified system that is designed to meet the needs of individuals who are currently “falling through the cracks”
• determined using a flexible approach that is responsive to people’s needs
• one that works in conjunction with other supports and services (i.e. it should work with the broader social and health care system)

Several groups suggested the Basic Income should not replace other benefits, like Ontario Works and ODSP.

One group suggested that current benefits provided through Ontario Works and ODSP should be made available to the working poor.

Several groups suggested that the Basic Income should not replace the Child Tax Benefit. One group also suggested that it should not replace Employment Insurance or the Canada Pension Plan.

Another group suggested that benefits currently made available through the Ontario Trillium Benefit are not enough and the basic income should include support for drug costs.

One group suggested that when determining the Basic Income amount, the cost of living be taken into consideration across different areas of Ontario.

Other groups suggested that additional benefits are needed, such as:

• universal drug, dental, physiotherapy, assistive devices, and eye care
• utility subsidies for individuals living in affordable housing
• childcare support
• mental health and counseling support
• budgeting and money management support
• employment and life skills training
• support for families with adult dependents with severe disabilities
• healthy food support
• affordable quality housing
• literacy supports
• transportation support (e.g. free bus pass)

How the Pilot should be delivered

Groups made a variety of suggestions about how to deliver the Pilot, including:

• designing the Pilot as a Negative Income Tax
• not designing the Pilot as a Negative Income Tax as people file their taxes once per year, which would prevent people from accessing the Basic Income in a short period of time
• designing the Basic Income to be responsive to people who lose their job mid-year
• designing the Basic Income amount to decrease as an individual’s income increases
• designing the Pilot as a Universal Basic Income as this reduces the stigma of rich people having to pay for poor people
• designing the Basic Income delivery system to be accessible to everyone, including people who do not have a fixed address
• designing the Basic Income delivery system using current resources, in order to reduce time and money spent on creating a new delivery system
• delivering payments through direct deposit, on a regular basis

As part of the Pilot design, some groups suggested that the needs of participants—once the Pilot ends—should be considered.

How the Pilot should be evaluated

Several groups suggested that:

• all of the Pilot’s outcomes listed in Hugh Segal’s paper are important (other groups suggested that specific outcome areas are of higher importance – in particular, health, education, food and housing)
• information related to the Pilot should be made public on an ongoing basis as transparency is important (other groups suggested that information be provided annually to highlight progress, but not on an ongoing basis)
• people be encouraged to participate in the Pilot by:
  • ensuring they will be no worse off than before
  • informing potential participants that their finances will increase
  • making pamphlets that are included in existing social assistance cheque packages
  • putting up posters in schools, libraries and doctors’ offices
  • explaining that it will reduce the stigma associated with receiving social assistance
• they would not be comfortable sharing their personal information if they did not receive the Basic Income (others felt the opposite and said they would be willing to share this information if it was protected through privacy acts, and a thorough ethics approval process)
• Pilot participants should be able to voluntarily withdraw from the study at any time
• Pilot participants should not receive Pilot results prior to a public report release (others felt the opposite)

One group suggested that some of Hugh Segal’s key outcome measurement areas were of lower importance, as they are guaranteed to result in positive changes (e.g. food and housing stability). This group suggested it was more important to track key outcome areas where the result is unknown. In particular, they suggested the Pilot track indicators that would create economic savings in other areas, such as health care, criminal justice, social assistance administration and employment.

Most groups suggested creating a Pilot that measures outcomes at the level of an individual, family and community.

Other suggestions included measuring changes in the following key areas:

• quality and stability of housing (e.g. length of time spent at an address)
• number of individuals who experience homelessness
• need for food bank and soup kitchen support
• level of stress before, during, and after the Pilot
• lengths of stay in hospital
• visits to the emergency room, and emergency walk-in clinics
• number of individuals who have a healthcare provider
• smoking cessation rates
• medication dependency
• obesity and diabetes rates
• family stability
• high school graduation rates and length of time spent in school
• workforce participation
• number of taxpayers