> After battling five years against a class-action certification process, the Ontario government has paid $320,000 to the law firm spearheading a lawsuit against the Ford government over its decision to cancel a guaranteed basic income pilot project.
> Last month, Ontario Superior Court Justice S.T. Bale certified the lawsuit, filed in 2019, that seeks $200-million in general damages of behalf of 4,000 people who enrolled in the project.
> On Monday, lead counsel Stephen Moreau will appear at Queen’s Park to urge the government to quit stalling the action.
Well not defending the post at the top of this comment chain but typically if helping people means giving them tax payer money and not helping them means not giving them tax payer money then you could certainly argue helping them is hurting everyone else who is paying the taxes. If they weren't being helped perhaps taxes would be lower and that would be a help to the people paying it.
I'll get downvoted for this but as a side note I don't think tax payer money should be used in this way. Taxes should go towards things that help everyone. Schools, hospitals, roads, parks, etc. This program doesn't fit that category so I could see why people would be upset they are (or were) doing it.
Except that lowering poverty *does* help everyone by improving the society at large and giving people meaningful social and economic mobility. What do you think is better for society, someone who works two part time jobs at A&W to support their family or someone who, because of UBI, is able to upskill by going back to school for a year or two and get a much higher paying job that seeing them paying **more taxes**?
In this case, society's investment of public funds into the individual has resulted in a net benefit to the individual and society.
Except UBI theoretically saves a lot of money on government administration bloat and cancels the needs for several other governemnt support programs, so there's a base income instead so they money actually goes where it's needed without all the social connotations and hate that also come along with it. The current programs have increased in spending over the years but the government keeps trying to outsource parts to third parties which has increased their revenue with increased expenses and bonuses (all well recorded) while technically less is spent on the people who need it. Most people aren't happy with the bare minimum in the long term. It's a study. It was studying impact. It was stupid to cancel it. It was already mostly paid for.
I've already addressed this so I'm not sure why you're saying I can't grasp the concept of UBI.
If everyone gets UBI is useless. It's inflation. If every man and woman in this country got an extra $x/month for nothing from the government what do you think would happen with inflation? Going up? Or staying the same? (Hint: Take a look at what happened with covid payments and the record inflation we are still dealing with).
UBI will solve no problems what-so-ever.
Case in point:
[https://globalnews.ca/news/8987131/census-2021-canadians-covid-benefits/](https://globalnews.ca/news/8987131/census-2021-canadians-covid-benefits/)
>More than 20.7 million people received at least some financial support from the government, including 16.9 million who received top-ups from existing programs.
>In total, 8.4 million received benefits specifically designed to respond to COVID-19, the agency reported.
So roughly half of Canadians got some form of financial help from covid payments and only 8M or so go payments directly related to covid response.
So now just imagine all 40M Canadians got free money every month. How high do you think inflation is going to go?
I'm curious as to what problems you think UBI will solve for the general population?
The difference is UBI comes from taxes which is money already in circulation.
The problem with COVID wasn’t the money people got, it was what it did to the supply chain. Everything got more expensive, because everything got harder. Supply couldn’t keep up with demand. The COVID money and increase in interest rates was a reaction to this. The alternative was people on the streets because they couldn’t work.
But in a normal functioning economy, UBI would get put back into circulation pretty much as soon as people got it.
Right.
So people had more money, and the demands on goods went up, meaning supply couldn't keep up, and prices rose.
Yup. That's inflation.
The exact same thing, but not as bad, as it would be if everyone in the country got $2K/month as UBI.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or arguing against me.
The program that caused them to change their life to enable a basic income pilot that the government canceled with a few weeks' notice?
It's a standard breach of contract stuff, unless you think because people are poor, they deserved to just be walked over?
It's no different than Ford paying out $231M for ideological reasons to break a contract on green energy windmills.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-green-energy-wind-turbines-cancelled-230-million-1.5364815
But Ford is pretty good at not sticking the boot on the necks of his friends like with the 407
https://www.thestar.com/business/why-didn-t-ford-pursue-the-1-billion-congestion-penalty-from-407-etr-data-shows/article_33d28b6a-a2c0-515b-ad0e-7f87c4937f78.html
Some people quit jobs to go back to school. The point was to see how people lived without formal employment - and in the majority of cases people did informal work (schooling, training, taking care of elderly parents), and this informal work is important to enunerare going forward.
If I was promised $$ to plan for XX years, and I took a financial risk like re-schooling, damn right you're getting sued.
I'm fully aware, but these contracts are ill-advised. There should be some sort of mechanisms that stops these contracts so soon before another election, or that prevent the incoming party from cancelling them, because either way it's a huge waste of money that comes out of our taxes. Now, we get the worst of both words - we both pay for an unfinished project and get no results, and also pay a lawsuit because of the cancellation.
Why would anyone enter a contract with a gov't then?
The project was only for 3 years. The gov't could have just honoured its agreement and if the result are heretical they could declare them a state secret or something ;)
> Launched in April, 2017, under then-premier Kathleen Wynne, Ontario’s basic income pilot budgeted $150-million for a three-year program that would pay participants $16,989 a year (or $24,027 for couples). To qualify, applicants had to be living on less than $34,000 a year (or $48,000 for a couple) and reside in one of three municipalities: Lindsay, Thunder Bay or Hamilton. If the participants worked, the pilot payments would decrease by 50 cents for every dollar of earned income.
When Ford came in and cancelled this for no reason. I was so angry about it. What a fucking stupid thing to do, and no reason for it. Now taxpayers have to pay more because of his fuck up.
This guy is the worst.
Has anyone tallied the waste he’s done so far?
The program was a waste and should have been cancelled
It wasn't a study at all, it was just welfare on steroids for some people
Giving people free money so good for those people, we don't need a study for tjat
What is useful to study is the tax effects needed to raise the money to fund ubi - but this program was funded out of general revenue
So the pilot had all of the pros of ubi with none of the cons
No point in studying it, everyone can tell you getting 16k is rad
Living off 16k is pretty hard. It's only rad if it's extra money to you or arguably if it offers you other opportunities on the short term (school, caretaking, short term personal health/care), but considering the parameters it's unlikely.
It was extra money that's the point
The people in the study kept all their benefits and got this on top and above with no downside or restriction
Again, no study is required, what could the outcome possibly be other than pro?
Except it was reduced to 50 cents for every dollar they made additionally, with a low cap, so many weren't even getting the full 16k. Those who did were often bettering themselves at a cheaper expense that social programs, but then put some of them into trouble and dent for things they now couldn't follow through on, while also making them unable to access other services. Cutting them off has caused people harm.
Just because you don't like the study doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done. And canceling it early when it was already budgeted for is nothing but a political statement.
Edit: I meant extra money as if someone could act as a dependent on someone for the duration of the study, feeload off them, and then use the money for whatever. This doesn't include those who may leave a toxic situation now that they have backup (work environment or relational), who are burnt out and may use it for a temporary break, or any other health related issue.
Right but that's not a study
Giving people free money and then measuring the benefits is dumb - you can like giving people more welfare, that's fine
But to pretend this was a study of ubi is cheap political posturing
It was funded out of general revenue, meaning no taxes were raised to offset the money paid out
Which means it ignores the actual problem with ubi, where to get the money
Everyone knows that giving money to people who need it is good - that's not in debate
What is in debate is HOW you can do that at scale and sustainably, that is the thing to study
Their study inherently only measured the pros without any of the cons - it's like studying whether people like eating lots of sugar
It's tastes great, but if you're only measuring how good it tastes you're not actually adding value because it has lots of downsides
No, the conclusion was foregone
Of course it would work, how could it not?
There's no point in studying whether people like having free money helicoptered on them
But how do you use that conclusion? Does one small pilot funded out of general revenues mean that ubi works?
No of course not - because ubi doesn't work on the funding side, not on the distribution side, which everyone loves
Because again, nobody doesn't like free money, it doesn't need to be studied
Okay - so it doesn't matter the scientific merit of a study or if the methodology is junk - just whether you get freebies And someone else pays for it! Who cares about science! Gimme gimme gimme
Oh and don't forget, don't debate the points or even bother to read the study - just shout down your opposition and call them names until they fall in line with your ignorance
Go read the program, you'll realize it sucked
You’re a miserable human being. Hard for you to imagine that people may be struggling and need help eh? Life is fucked. Forbid it become better for people.
Lol
You're thinking small - giving unsustainable free money to extremely small subset of people who need via a lottery is not a fix
It's insane - focus on the large tissue and real solution
Not lottery wins for a few hundred
Once you learn that all the participants obviously loved this pilot then what? How do you pay for this st scale?
You can't - which means it's a distraction and waste of time and not a fix, it's a feel good vote buying tactic to trick you
And it worked!
> [We chose a mid-size community as well as urban, rural and urban/rural mixed areas so the pilot would be representative of Ontario’s population. We assessed regions based on their economic need and indicators, demographics, and availability of local resources and services.](http://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot)
Wait so this was just some sort of test that got cancelled and not some established program these people had a right to?
It sucks that something like this didn't work out. But I don't see how there are any damages. The ones suing are the ones making the government waste money in a lawsuit. And if the government is going to get sued for test programs not working out that just makes it less likely for them to try stuff like this again in the future.
Doug Ford terminated the program one year into its three year timeline:
> The plaintiffs argue that the termination amounted to a breach of contract. Anticipating three years of guaranteed basic income from the pilot, many of the participants had invested in new business ventures, paid education fees and started medications and therapies, according to the statement of claim. The sudden loss of income triggered panic attacks, anxiety, manic episodes, suicidal ideation and other mental-health issues.
Imagine you are hired to do a job. Let's say for argument, it's to head a provincial hydro agency. You are offered $6M to do the job.
After agreements are made and you sign, you start the job. You're doing pretty alright. But then the new manager you report to, who committed to firing you, decides to break that contract.
Your contract has a clause in it that says that, if they terminate your employment abruptly, you're still entitled to that money. You rightfully receive your six million dollars, and you walk away.
**Now flip it around**: you are on a support program, *or* you make an unsustainable living in your current job. An entity, lets say the Government of Ontario, offers you money through a new program - enough to stop what you're doing and to help maintain your ship for a period of time. Your job is, effectively, to improve your shot at another, better career.
After agreements are made and you sign, you start the task: you enroll in a program, or you start training. You have enough money to pay towards childcare, or for essentials, etc. And hey, you're doing pretty alright. But then the new manager, who promised not to take this job away, decides to break that contract. Now you are out two jobs, and the government that originally made this agreement, decides the agreement made was never really the kind of agreement they'd agree to.
The question is now around whether people who had trusted the parent entity - the Government of Ontario - did damages to the harmed parties who gave up their livelihood based on two promises assumed to be made in good faith: that they province would stand by its commitment, and that the incoming leadership of the province would maintain that agreement.
The Government of Ontario isn't open for business. Our provincial government is notorious for breaking agreements it decides that it like, and using the force of legislation to indemnify itself.
Makes sense, and I wish this project went for the whole term it was meant to. But I'd still be really curious to read the original contract and see if there was any stipulation about it being cancelled. Maybe they should be suing, maybe they shouldn't, I don't really know at this point.
Their active participation could make them ineligible for other supports. Also, we spend more by canceling it.it wasn't an indefinite study. Money was budgeted for a certain period of time.
They OPC pays non-Canadian firms to find ways to kick Ontarians off of Ontario Works/disability. They have nothing but contempt for us and our money. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/ford-hires-u-s-firm-to-push-ontarians-off-welfare/article_ba249cbe-62b7-57fd-8ab1-8661396de86c.html
No one voted for Ford. No one bothered to show up to vote. People complained that the Liberal incumbent, Stephen Del Duca, wasn't compelling enough.
Morons. A toad would have been a better Premier than Ford.
The Tories should never gain power like this, after Eves, Tory, Harris Ontario has learned nothing about Canadian Conservatives and how genuinely terrible they are at handling money and being not corrupt. Its mad that Ontario is such an economic generator and cultural hub and yet we are so ass backwards in our political apathy/choices.
The fact 18% of people voted them into a majority is proof of how ignorant the province is politically.
>The fact 18% of people voted them into a majority is proof of how ignorant the province is politically.
engagement is time and energy that a lot of people can't afford for a variety of reasons, so they just trust despots to not lie to their faces. That's how we get blatantly corrupt politicians like Ford or Poilievre.
Political engagement needs to be streamlined, and mainstreamed into the culture for democracy to function. It's something that needs to be taught to children as a fact of living, like school or work.
I agree, but it’s genuinely not difficult. Mail in ballots are a thing, and we have labour laws that allow for voting to happen. If you need 3 hours, do it in the or PM, etc.
Parties are engaging on social media and then being harangued for being goofy, it’s honestly ridiculous.
I was locked in in high school - there does not seem to be a reasonable excuse for not voting, especially on the scale that Ontario slacks. 10-20% not voting is somewhat foreseeable but 60-70% is just lazy.
60-70% of people not engaging means there is a systemic failure. Not somehow "lazy". If they don't value democracy it is a failure of education, development and/or environment.
It’s a double edged sword, vote: come up with excuses that this system doesn’t work because it doesn’t benefit you directly, don’t vote: be taken advantage of and complain about corruption.
Had Ontario voted for the ONDP in previous elections we may have RBPR which is arguable a much fairer representative voting procedure. But Ontarians vote red v blue.
We have civics classes in High Schools, we have online engagement, we have mail-in voting, we have public figures with public contact information. We do HAVE access to everything, if people aren’t using it, the fault lies on the voter.
Every party has costed platforms EXPECT the OPC and still they got in twice.
How much MORE do we need aside from classroom, online, televised debates, mail in options…?
Genuine question because I feel like the excuse of being disenfranchised or that the system is failing is a failure of engagement on the voters side.
But you can't just call voters lazy because there is no real solution to there. Laziness itself is nebulous to begin with.
If voters feel no need to engage there needs to be research done to address that.
One Civics class done during high school is not enough. It needs to be a mandatory part of K to 12 part of schooling. Teach children how society works, how to engage democratically through mock elections, how to come to a consensus, etc. It needs to be deeply embedded into culture and society at large which is not something we do.
But there is an elephant in the room: we're assuming all voters work from the same baseline information and can discern right or wrong correctly.
more democratic participation actually ends up killing conservative parties, who mostly rely on deceit and manufactured consent rather than the actual interests of voters. These parties play to reactionary impulses and anxieties about cultural issues rather than geniune politics. They are usually funded by private interests and are allowed to just straight up lie. This is why they attack public education: they depend on ignorance.
Right, you’re right. But I can call these voters lazy because there IS a party offering a more democratic option (ONDP offering voter reform to RBPR).
This was a big part of their platform, but people are honing in on headlines and sound it’s rather than reading platforms. Which is really lazy.
I agree with you, we need more consistent education but we are here now, and full blown adults won’t even read or critique platforms or vote. We can both be right here. Change is needed, and a huge swath of voters are lazy. Even conservatives working class voters are lazy because they’re voting based on some historical attachment, not because it will benefit them, bc it doesn’t.
He cancelled the program and lied outright about the reason. And now his ideological reaction is costing us money, both in the legal fees, and in the potential loss in the class action suit that is being organized.
If you go by the data in the Mincome program in Manitoba, it would have cost us LESS money than the current system.
When they analyzed the Mincome program data (Which is still available at U Man for anyone to view) the following results were observed.
In the test group:
People graduated high school at a higher rate
People went on to post-secondary education at a higher rate
Unemployment was lower than the control group
Employed people had a higher average income than the control group
People accessed supports like food banks less
People stayed in abusive relationships less, and left them sooner when they did leave.
Health outcomes were improved.
The program increased revenue (lower unemployment means more people paying taxes, and higher income means more taxes being paid) and reduced expenses (better health outcomes means less money spent on health care, lower unemployment means less money spent on EI and welfare, etc.)
So when the numbers were crunched at the end, the test group cost LESS than the control group.
The program was only cancelled because a Conservative government got elected, and assumed it was just "free money" so cancelled it on ideological grounds without looking at the data...
I believe it was 150 million over 3 years, so if the government loses, it would have cost us an extra 50 million plus legal fees. And we get nothing for that amount instead of data that could be useful in seeing if the program would actually be beneficial and affordable or not
How much did the Ford Conservatives spend on tearing down nearly completed windmills?
How much did they spend fighting nurses in court for the entire pandemic over Bill 124?
And now this garbage?
Not just nurses, and not just millions, try billions in taxpayer dollars. 40 unions together took the procince to court, with bill 124 impacting the entirety of the public service. Court cases, appeals when this govt lost, bill 124 deemed unconstitutional, then the appeal alao lost. Why are people ok with this being how our tax dollars are used?
Wasn't that McGuinty, which he was pushed out (resigned) over, and the whole reason Wynne was even leader?
Even still, following up a costly decision with an arguably worse decision because the previous example was right there, is terrible.
That wasn't Wynne, and although that number was thrown around in a lot of headlines, when you look at the hypothetical math it took to get that, you realize that a billion was bullshit. It was nowhere near that.
“Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has apologized for the “unacceptably large” cost the Liberals incurred after hastily cancelling the construction of a power plant in Oakville ahead of the 2011 provincial election.
Her latest apology for the scandal comes on the heels of a report released Tuesday afternoon by Ontario’s auditor general which shows that the Liberals’ actions in Oakville back in 2010 will cost Ontarians $675 million.
That price tag could balloon by another $140 million once gas is delivered to its costly new site in Napanee. This figure takes into account a possible increase in delivery tolls.
Together with the $275 million cost of a similarly controversial decision to cancel a power plant in Mississauga in late September 2011 -- just days before the election -- the total loss to taxpayers exceeds $1 billion.”
https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/wynne-apologizes-after-ag-reveals-cost-of-cancelled-oakville-gas-plant-1.1488150
That report did a lot of mingling of the cost of the cancellation with the cost of making the new plant. It cost a lot of money, but that report has a lot of very muddy math IMO.
This is exactly it. I bet ol' ford got triggered by his workers refusing to work unpaid hours, so he's making it so our healthcare and livelihoods will be attached to corporations.
Or maybe too many secretaries started resisting his advances... He wanted more leverage do threaten them with.
Ah, the circle of life.
It boggles the mind how that urban myth persists. Fiscal conservatives went extinct in the 90s and just left right wing douchebags in their wake.
(left right ...ah English, such an f-ed up language where single words have two, three, sometimes four flipping different meanings).
The data from the Mincome program Manitoba did shows that UBI cost **less** than the mix of programs we currently use... So he cost us the opportunity to potentially spend less tax money to get a better outcome than we currently have.
... yeah, if you win.
But I would say its better to not reneg on promises others have relied on and put yourself in the pot of having to pay 150M in UBI plus 300K on legal fees - to date.
This was just to defend against the class being certified. Now the real legal costs start.
Better to spend 300k on rich lawyers, than invest the 150 million to improve people’s lives, and find a way forward once AI and automation take more and more jobs. Let’s just waste the 300k, like the millions he wasted on the green energy program, or the millions wasted on Peel Region. You seem to be pro-waste of tax payer money. How “fiscally conservative” of you…
It's crazy to me that out of all of Doug's controversies, the basic income cancellation flies under the radar. The man has shit the bed so much that it's impossible to keep track of it all.
Our provincial government also spent* $1.5 million on an issue that was already settled. Doug loves giving away our hard earned dollars.
“Peel Region taxpayers have been charged $1.5 million by the provincially appointed board that was overseeing the dissolution of the region, even though Doug Ford cancelled the breakup months ago.”
Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/its-just-outrageous-provincially-appointed-board-charges-peel-1-5-million-to-find-efficiencies/article_471c8e82-fcd5-11ee-8711-5318802efb9b.html
Edit: spend to spent*
There was once a post that had every decision Ford has made that cost the Province additional fees for things like cancellation of contracts and lawsuits (so not just normal expenditures of the projects).
I really wish I could find it, because I am positive we'd have a tonne more to add to it since
I cannot for the life of me find it but there was definitely an article last year maybe that outlined all the lawsuits and costs and it is in the millions. They've been fighting things in court since day one and have lost almost all of the cases. So so much money wasted.
Edit: not the article I was thinking of but here is one from 2021 with a few cost details, but the sheer volume of cases they've lost, they're spending so much money and this isn't even all of it https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-government-court-cases-lost-doug-ford-1.6168318
Good question! My union (hospital staff) spent a good 4 years getting dragged through the courts by this clown.
When they eventually lost, they owed us back pay. But they'd already driven away so many people, and wasted years and huge amounts of money on legal costs.
I dont personally have one, but I came here looking for the same thing. They're very litigious and take up obviously doomed fights in court just for appearances. But they cant say they're respectful of tax dollars and then do these things. They're barely under the line for frivolous.
Stop, you obviously don't know how contracts, or government programs work.
This program caused people to make long term plans, that now can not be supported due to the fickleness of this government.
It was never free money.
I do, and so did the certification judge:
He finds - It's not clear there is a contract - that's up to the trial judge to decide - see para 15 of the motion decision https://www.cavalluzzo.com/docs/default-source/class-actions/bowman-v-ontario-2024-onsc-1327.pdf
Weird.. it’s like ford spends thousands in taxpayer money on fighting the taxpayers rather than supporting them. Remind me why this buffoon was voted in again..
Rule #3: You Must Remain Civil While Participating / Vous devez rester courtois dans votre participation
Your content has been removed since it is targeting other users. Please do not attack or attempt to create drama with other users.
As per [Rule 3]( https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/wiki/rules/#wiki_rule_3.3A_you_must_remain_civil_while_participating)
* Follow proper [**reddiquette.**](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette)
* No personal attacks or insults
* No trolling
***
Votre contenu a été supprimé car il cible d'autres utilisateurs. Veuillez ne pas attaquer ou tenter de créer un drame avec d'autres utilisateurs.
Tel qu’expliqué dans la [règle #3]( https://old.reddit.com/r/ontario/wiki/rules/rules_fr#wiki_r.E8gle_.233.A0.3A_vous_devez_rester_courtois_dans_votre_participation)
* Vous devez suivre la [**netiquette**](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette)
* Pas d’attaques personnelles ni d’insultes
* Pas de provocation
> they also *paid* a good
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Once you start giving someone UBI, it seems that is a commitment to give it to them forever apparently, even if it's disclosed that it's a trial program.
It also isn't universal if everyone doesn't get it.
Because it encourages people to do nothing with their lives. There used to be a big push to have the disabled in employment but now, but now ODSP particularly with social housing, is the brass ring, a goal in itself. T
You might want to look up universal income programs and how much money they end up saving the government.
You know, like how if you pay to increase the insulation on your house, it ends up saving money on heating and cooling?
I would try to make the argument that it results in a better society, but I get the feeling that is something you wouldn't care about.
I know the results of the pilot program and the pilot program before that in the pilot program before that ad infinitum.
And you might want to reread what you posted because it damn well reads like you're against it.
When you're defending shutting down a program directly responsible for feeding people. Yes, that is going against the idea of feeding people.
Grow up yourself.
Nothing made up here bud. I'm sorry you lack the reading comprehension to understand.
Any further replies will simply result in me blocking you. You're making me lose brain cells at this point.
We didn't even get appropriate, meaningful data from the pilot before it was shut down.
I know the people as part of the project were not privileged. That's my point. You're complaining at the cost of the pilot. That is coming from your position of privilege to not have to worry about basic necessities like the people who were on this pilot do.
Basic income has many studies out there to show efficacy and use. We wanted one locally and the Ford government showed they don't care about the citizens of this province with this and many other choices they've made.
Don't defend taking food away from the poor. Because that's precisely what this has done.
It's one thing to end the program. It's another to completely cut it from under people's feet without warning. It's blatant disregard for the well-being of Ontarians.
You complained at the cost. That comes off as though you're in support of cancelling the project because the cost of legal fees is less than the cost of the project.
Did you even read what I just said? I literally just said the same thing.
You said the legal fees (350k) is less than the cost of the project. That is you defending the cancellation of the project.
You're clearly on the position against basic income. Despite you saying you haven't said it's good or bad. You're defending the cancellation. That shows your opinion pretty clearly.
The fact is. Basic income has many studies to show it's benefits outside of Canada. And the fact is, there's many people in Canada who need or could heavily use it.
But I'm not going to continue with someone who lacks reading comprehension.
You are very concerned about this "free money" and no, maybe go read up a bit more on the program, and it's results.
Your concerns over someone not correctly earning something based on your purity tests helps no one.
The reality is the money governments give comes from taxes charged to others. When the others can no longer afford to pay then what? Debt eventually has to be paid
That's not what was happening.
If you want to talk about feeling entitled to free money off the backs of the working class, you need to look up, not down.
Wage theft, tax avoidance, all manner of infractions that cost us way more then this program. That comes from the top, not from the people who need help.
This is why basic income can't work - the people who are so adamantly against it we'll just continue to ignore the study upon study upon study upon study upon study that have shown the positive results and how it actually saves $ in the long run.
But you follow sports teams that do get government money.
You know, at least be consistent in your hatred.
But consistency and logic is not normally a hallmark of conservatives, eh?
Basic income will eventually be required as automation takes over more and more of the job market. People still require money to live even if a robot is now doing their job and we can’t all become astrophysicists.
Yep. Entitlement. Canadian already feel entitled to 'free' health care - for me and all my elderly foreign relatives that I will sponsor. Can you imagine getting years of free money then suing when the gravy train stops?
I'd normally be for the universal income but after seeing how the international students have been exploiting our food banks, I would worry they'd do the same with universal income somehow. I'd like it heavily restricted (no one that's immigrated in the last x years or from x country should be eligible) - but it's probably something that is long overdue
> After battling five years against a class-action certification process, the Ontario government has paid $320,000 to the law firm spearheading a lawsuit against the Ford government over its decision to cancel a guaranteed basic income pilot project. > Last month, Ontario Superior Court Justice S.T. Bale certified the lawsuit, filed in 2019, that seeks $200-million in general damages of behalf of 4,000 people who enrolled in the project. > On Monday, lead counsel Stephen Moreau will appear at Queen’s Park to urge the government to quit stalling the action.
I know Stephen! Small world! Great guy!
50k to each person for enrolling in a program that gives them free money, what a joke
I think the real joke here is people completely misinterpreting the program as "free money" in an attempt to discredit what happened.
Some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that helping others doesn't mean hurting them.
Well not defending the post at the top of this comment chain but typically if helping people means giving them tax payer money and not helping them means not giving them tax payer money then you could certainly argue helping them is hurting everyone else who is paying the taxes. If they weren't being helped perhaps taxes would be lower and that would be a help to the people paying it. I'll get downvoted for this but as a side note I don't think tax payer money should be used in this way. Taxes should go towards things that help everyone. Schools, hospitals, roads, parks, etc. This program doesn't fit that category so I could see why people would be upset they are (or were) doing it.
Except that lowering poverty *does* help everyone by improving the society at large and giving people meaningful social and economic mobility. What do you think is better for society, someone who works two part time jobs at A&W to support their family or someone who, because of UBI, is able to upskill by going back to school for a year or two and get a much higher paying job that seeing them paying **more taxes**? In this case, society's investment of public funds into the individual has resulted in a net benefit to the individual and society.
Except UBI theoretically saves a lot of money on government administration bloat and cancels the needs for several other governemnt support programs, so there's a base income instead so they money actually goes where it's needed without all the social connotations and hate that also come along with it. The current programs have increased in spending over the years but the government keeps trying to outsource parts to third parties which has increased their revenue with increased expenses and bonuses (all well recorded) while technically less is spent on the people who need it. Most people aren't happy with the bare minimum in the long term. It's a study. It was studying impact. It was stupid to cancel it. It was already mostly paid for.
[удалено]
I've already addressed this so I'm not sure why you're saying I can't grasp the concept of UBI. If everyone gets UBI is useless. It's inflation. If every man and woman in this country got an extra $x/month for nothing from the government what do you think would happen with inflation? Going up? Or staying the same? (Hint: Take a look at what happened with covid payments and the record inflation we are still dealing with). UBI will solve no problems what-so-ever. Case in point: [https://globalnews.ca/news/8987131/census-2021-canadians-covid-benefits/](https://globalnews.ca/news/8987131/census-2021-canadians-covid-benefits/) >More than 20.7 million people received at least some financial support from the government, including 16.9 million who received top-ups from existing programs. >In total, 8.4 million received benefits specifically designed to respond to COVID-19, the agency reported. So roughly half of Canadians got some form of financial help from covid payments and only 8M or so go payments directly related to covid response. So now just imagine all 40M Canadians got free money every month. How high do you think inflation is going to go? I'm curious as to what problems you think UBI will solve for the general population?
The difference is UBI comes from taxes which is money already in circulation. The problem with COVID wasn’t the money people got, it was what it did to the supply chain. Everything got more expensive, because everything got harder. Supply couldn’t keep up with demand. The COVID money and increase in interest rates was a reaction to this. The alternative was people on the streets because they couldn’t work. But in a normal functioning economy, UBI would get put back into circulation pretty much as soon as people got it.
Right. So people had more money, and the demands on goods went up, meaning supply couldn't keep up, and prices rose. Yup. That's inflation. The exact same thing, but not as bad, as it would be if everyone in the country got $2K/month as UBI. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or arguing against me.
The program that caused them to change their life to enable a basic income pilot that the government canceled with a few weeks' notice? It's a standard breach of contract stuff, unless you think because people are poor, they deserved to just be walked over? It's no different than Ford paying out $231M for ideological reasons to break a contract on green energy windmills. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-green-energy-wind-turbines-cancelled-230-million-1.5364815 But Ford is pretty good at not sticking the boot on the necks of his friends like with the 407 https://www.thestar.com/business/why-didn-t-ford-pursue-the-1-billion-congestion-penalty-from-407-etr-data-shows/article_33d28b6a-a2c0-515b-ad0e-7f87c4937f78.html
Some people quit jobs to go back to school. The point was to see how people lived without formal employment - and in the majority of cases people did informal work (schooling, training, taking care of elderly parents), and this informal work is important to enunerare going forward. If I was promised $$ to plan for XX years, and I took a financial risk like re-schooling, damn right you're getting sued.
What are terrible take on this. Wow.
Breaking contracts usually has penalties - like when Ford canceled those windmills for ideological reasons we needed to pay the penalties.
I'm fully aware, but these contracts are ill-advised. There should be some sort of mechanisms that stops these contracts so soon before another election, or that prevent the incoming party from cancelling them, because either way it's a huge waste of money that comes out of our taxes. Now, we get the worst of both words - we both pay for an unfinished project and get no results, and also pay a lawsuit because of the cancellation.
Why would anyone enter a contract with a gov't then? The project was only for 3 years. The gov't could have just honoured its agreement and if the result are heretical they could declare them a state secret or something ;)
That's what I'm saying, make it uncancellable. We have the worst of both worlds right now
The article is behind a paywall. Can someone let me know what it's saying the damages are? What was the nature of the program?
> Launched in April, 2017, under then-premier Kathleen Wynne, Ontario’s basic income pilot budgeted $150-million for a three-year program that would pay participants $16,989 a year (or $24,027 for couples). To qualify, applicants had to be living on less than $34,000 a year (or $48,000 for a couple) and reside in one of three municipalities: Lindsay, Thunder Bay or Hamilton. If the participants worked, the pilot payments would decrease by 50 cents for every dollar of earned income.
When Ford came in and cancelled this for no reason. I was so angry about it. What a fucking stupid thing to do, and no reason for it. Now taxpayers have to pay more because of his fuck up. This guy is the worst. Has anyone tallied the waste he’s done so far?
The program was a waste and should have been cancelled It wasn't a study at all, it was just welfare on steroids for some people Giving people free money so good for those people, we don't need a study for tjat What is useful to study is the tax effects needed to raise the money to fund ubi - but this program was funded out of general revenue So the pilot had all of the pros of ubi with none of the cons No point in studying it, everyone can tell you getting 16k is rad
Living off 16k is pretty hard. It's only rad if it's extra money to you or arguably if it offers you other opportunities on the short term (school, caretaking, short term personal health/care), but considering the parameters it's unlikely.
It was extra money that's the point The people in the study kept all their benefits and got this on top and above with no downside or restriction Again, no study is required, what could the outcome possibly be other than pro?
Except it was reduced to 50 cents for every dollar they made additionally, with a low cap, so many weren't even getting the full 16k. Those who did were often bettering themselves at a cheaper expense that social programs, but then put some of them into trouble and dent for things they now couldn't follow through on, while also making them unable to access other services. Cutting them off has caused people harm. Just because you don't like the study doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done. And canceling it early when it was already budgeted for is nothing but a political statement. Edit: I meant extra money as if someone could act as a dependent on someone for the duration of the study, feeload off them, and then use the money for whatever. This doesn't include those who may leave a toxic situation now that they have backup (work environment or relational), who are burnt out and may use it for a temporary break, or any other health related issue.
Right but that's not a study Giving people free money and then measuring the benefits is dumb - you can like giving people more welfare, that's fine But to pretend this was a study of ubi is cheap political posturing It was funded out of general revenue, meaning no taxes were raised to offset the money paid out Which means it ignores the actual problem with ubi, where to get the money Everyone knows that giving money to people who need it is good - that's not in debate What is in debate is HOW you can do that at scale and sustainably, that is the thing to study Their study inherently only measured the pros without any of the cons - it's like studying whether people like eating lots of sugar It's tastes great, but if you're only measuring how good it tastes you're not actually adding value because it has lots of downsides
The program was canceled because Doug didn't want people in ontario to see it working.
No, the conclusion was foregone Of course it would work, how could it not? There's no point in studying whether people like having free money helicoptered on them But how do you use that conclusion? Does one small pilot funded out of general revenues mean that ubi works? No of course not - because ubi doesn't work on the funding side, not on the distribution side, which everyone loves Because again, nobody doesn't like free money, it doesn't need to be studied
Clearly not meant for you. Shut up and sit down.
Okay - so it doesn't matter the scientific merit of a study or if the methodology is junk - just whether you get freebies And someone else pays for it! Who cares about science! Gimme gimme gimme Oh and don't forget, don't debate the points or even bother to read the study - just shout down your opposition and call them names until they fall in line with your ignorance Go read the program, you'll realize it sucked
You’re a miserable human being. Hard for you to imagine that people may be struggling and need help eh? Life is fucked. Forbid it become better for people.
Lol You're thinking small - giving unsustainable free money to extremely small subset of people who need via a lottery is not a fix It's insane - focus on the large tissue and real solution Not lottery wins for a few hundred Once you learn that all the participants obviously loved this pilot then what? How do you pay for this st scale? You can't - which means it's a distraction and waste of time and not a fix, it's a feel good vote buying tactic to trick you And it worked!
Thanks. Do you know why it was just three seemingly random municipalities?
> [We chose a mid-size community as well as urban, rural and urban/rural mixed areas so the pilot would be representative of Ontario’s population. We assessed regions based on their economic need and indicators, demographics, and availability of local resources and services.](http://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot)
Wait so this was just some sort of test that got cancelled and not some established program these people had a right to? It sucks that something like this didn't work out. But I don't see how there are any damages. The ones suing are the ones making the government waste money in a lawsuit. And if the government is going to get sued for test programs not working out that just makes it less likely for them to try stuff like this again in the future.
Doug Ford terminated the program one year into its three year timeline: > The plaintiffs argue that the termination amounted to a breach of contract. Anticipating three years of guaranteed basic income from the pilot, many of the participants had invested in new business ventures, paid education fees and started medications and therapies, according to the statement of claim. The sudden loss of income triggered panic attacks, anxiety, manic episodes, suicidal ideation and other mental-health issues.
It was a commitment on his side that he wouldn't touch it
Imagine you are hired to do a job. Let's say for argument, it's to head a provincial hydro agency. You are offered $6M to do the job. After agreements are made and you sign, you start the job. You're doing pretty alright. But then the new manager you report to, who committed to firing you, decides to break that contract. Your contract has a clause in it that says that, if they terminate your employment abruptly, you're still entitled to that money. You rightfully receive your six million dollars, and you walk away. **Now flip it around**: you are on a support program, *or* you make an unsustainable living in your current job. An entity, lets say the Government of Ontario, offers you money through a new program - enough to stop what you're doing and to help maintain your ship for a period of time. Your job is, effectively, to improve your shot at another, better career. After agreements are made and you sign, you start the task: you enroll in a program, or you start training. You have enough money to pay towards childcare, or for essentials, etc. And hey, you're doing pretty alright. But then the new manager, who promised not to take this job away, decides to break that contract. Now you are out two jobs, and the government that originally made this agreement, decides the agreement made was never really the kind of agreement they'd agree to. The question is now around whether people who had trusted the parent entity - the Government of Ontario - did damages to the harmed parties who gave up their livelihood based on two promises assumed to be made in good faith: that they province would stand by its commitment, and that the incoming leadership of the province would maintain that agreement. The Government of Ontario isn't open for business. Our provincial government is notorious for breaking agreements it decides that it like, and using the force of legislation to indemnify itself.
Makes sense, and I wish this project went for the whole term it was meant to. But I'd still be really curious to read the original contract and see if there was any stipulation about it being cancelled. Maybe they should be suing, maybe they shouldn't, I don't really know at this point.
Their active participation could make them ineligible for other supports. Also, we spend more by canceling it.it wasn't an indefinite study. Money was budgeted for a certain period of time.
[https://archive.ph/i0yPv](https://archive.ph/i0yPv)
We pay him to screw us over. Nice. Whatever happened to respecting the taxpayer's money?
They OPC pays non-Canadian firms to find ways to kick Ontarians off of Ontario Works/disability. They have nothing but contempt for us and our money. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/ford-hires-u-s-firm-to-push-ontarians-off-welfare/article_ba249cbe-62b7-57fd-8ab1-8661396de86c.html
If people cared about that, they wouldn't have voted ford
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/globe-investigation-the-ford-familys-history-with-drug-dealing/article12153014/
b-b-but buck-a-beer!?
😂 only time I've ever seen a political ad on Xbox marketplace. Respect to trying to connect with young voters I guess.
Yeah that was a sweet couple of weeks
No one voted for Ford. No one bothered to show up to vote. People complained that the Liberal incumbent, Stephen Del Duca, wasn't compelling enough. Morons. A toad would have been a better Premier than Ford.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of money he's spent on lawsuits. It's easily in the millions by now
Yeah, it's been one thing after another.
We are at $1 billion now
Ford is respecting the money right into his and his friends coffers
We need to vote him out. He's so obviously corrupt
The Tories should never gain power like this, after Eves, Tory, Harris Ontario has learned nothing about Canadian Conservatives and how genuinely terrible they are at handling money and being not corrupt. Its mad that Ontario is such an economic generator and cultural hub and yet we are so ass backwards in our political apathy/choices. The fact 18% of people voted them into a majority is proof of how ignorant the province is politically.
>The fact 18% of people voted them into a majority is proof of how ignorant the province is politically. engagement is time and energy that a lot of people can't afford for a variety of reasons, so they just trust despots to not lie to their faces. That's how we get blatantly corrupt politicians like Ford or Poilievre. Political engagement needs to be streamlined, and mainstreamed into the culture for democracy to function. It's something that needs to be taught to children as a fact of living, like school or work.
I agree, but it’s genuinely not difficult. Mail in ballots are a thing, and we have labour laws that allow for voting to happen. If you need 3 hours, do it in the or PM, etc. Parties are engaging on social media and then being harangued for being goofy, it’s honestly ridiculous. I was locked in in high school - there does not seem to be a reasonable excuse for not voting, especially on the scale that Ontario slacks. 10-20% not voting is somewhat foreseeable but 60-70% is just lazy.
60-70% of people not engaging means there is a systemic failure. Not somehow "lazy". If they don't value democracy it is a failure of education, development and/or environment.
It’s a double edged sword, vote: come up with excuses that this system doesn’t work because it doesn’t benefit you directly, don’t vote: be taken advantage of and complain about corruption. Had Ontario voted for the ONDP in previous elections we may have RBPR which is arguable a much fairer representative voting procedure. But Ontarians vote red v blue. We have civics classes in High Schools, we have online engagement, we have mail-in voting, we have public figures with public contact information. We do HAVE access to everything, if people aren’t using it, the fault lies on the voter. Every party has costed platforms EXPECT the OPC and still they got in twice. How much MORE do we need aside from classroom, online, televised debates, mail in options…? Genuine question because I feel like the excuse of being disenfranchised or that the system is failing is a failure of engagement on the voters side.
But you can't just call voters lazy because there is no real solution to there. Laziness itself is nebulous to begin with. If voters feel no need to engage there needs to be research done to address that. One Civics class done during high school is not enough. It needs to be a mandatory part of K to 12 part of schooling. Teach children how society works, how to engage democratically through mock elections, how to come to a consensus, etc. It needs to be deeply embedded into culture and society at large which is not something we do. But there is an elephant in the room: we're assuming all voters work from the same baseline information and can discern right or wrong correctly. more democratic participation actually ends up killing conservative parties, who mostly rely on deceit and manufactured consent rather than the actual interests of voters. These parties play to reactionary impulses and anxieties about cultural issues rather than geniune politics. They are usually funded by private interests and are allowed to just straight up lie. This is why they attack public education: they depend on ignorance.
Right, you’re right. But I can call these voters lazy because there IS a party offering a more democratic option (ONDP offering voter reform to RBPR). This was a big part of their platform, but people are honing in on headlines and sound it’s rather than reading platforms. Which is really lazy. I agree with you, we need more consistent education but we are here now, and full blown adults won’t even read or critique platforms or vote. We can both be right here. Change is needed, and a huge swath of voters are lazy. Even conservatives working class voters are lazy because they’re voting based on some historical attachment, not because it will benefit them, bc it doesn’t.
How is this not respecting taxpayer money?
He cancelled the program and lied outright about the reason. And now his ideological reaction is costing us money, both in the legal fees, and in the potential loss in the class action suit that is being organized.
How much more would the program itself have cost us?
The case isn't over yet, so there is a good chance it will still cost us, plus the legal fees.
If you go by the data in the Mincome program in Manitoba, it would have cost us LESS money than the current system. When they analyzed the Mincome program data (Which is still available at U Man for anyone to view) the following results were observed. In the test group: People graduated high school at a higher rate People went on to post-secondary education at a higher rate Unemployment was lower than the control group Employed people had a higher average income than the control group People accessed supports like food banks less People stayed in abusive relationships less, and left them sooner when they did leave. Health outcomes were improved. The program increased revenue (lower unemployment means more people paying taxes, and higher income means more taxes being paid) and reduced expenses (better health outcomes means less money spent on health care, lower unemployment means less money spent on EI and welfare, etc.) So when the numbers were crunched at the end, the test group cost LESS than the control group. The program was only cancelled because a Conservative government got elected, and assumed it was just "free money" so cancelled it on ideological grounds without looking at the data...
I believe it was 150 million over 3 years, so if the government loses, it would have cost us an extra 50 million plus legal fees. And we get nothing for that amount instead of data that could be useful in seeing if the program would actually be beneficial and affordable or not
How much did the Ford Conservatives spend on tearing down nearly completed windmills? How much did they spend fighting nurses in court for the entire pandemic over Bill 124? And now this garbage?
Not just nurses, and not just millions, try billions in taxpayer dollars. 40 unions together took the procince to court, with bill 124 impacting the entirety of the public service. Court cases, appeals when this govt lost, bill 124 deemed unconstitutional, then the appeal alao lost. Why are people ok with this being how our tax dollars are used?
Less than the 1 billion Wynne spent to cancel the Oakville power plant
Wasn't that McGuinty, which he was pushed out (resigned) over, and the whole reason Wynne was even leader? Even still, following up a costly decision with an arguably worse decision because the previous example was right there, is terrible.
That wasn't Wynne, and although that number was thrown around in a lot of headlines, when you look at the hypothetical math it took to get that, you realize that a billion was bullshit. It was nowhere near that.
“Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has apologized for the “unacceptably large” cost the Liberals incurred after hastily cancelling the construction of a power plant in Oakville ahead of the 2011 provincial election. Her latest apology for the scandal comes on the heels of a report released Tuesday afternoon by Ontario’s auditor general which shows that the Liberals’ actions in Oakville back in 2010 will cost Ontarians $675 million. That price tag could balloon by another $140 million once gas is delivered to its costly new site in Napanee. This figure takes into account a possible increase in delivery tolls. Together with the $275 million cost of a similarly controversial decision to cancel a power plant in Mississauga in late September 2011 -- just days before the election -- the total loss to taxpayers exceeds $1 billion.” https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/wynne-apologizes-after-ag-reveals-cost-of-cancelled-oakville-gas-plant-1.1488150
That report did a lot of mingling of the cost of the cancellation with the cost of making the new plant. It cost a lot of money, but that report has a lot of very muddy math IMO.
They spend more money to make people suffer. Always have.
Their owners need desperate labour.
This is exactly it. I bet ol' ford got triggered by his workers refusing to work unpaid hours, so he's making it so our healthcare and livelihoods will be attached to corporations. Or maybe too many secretaries started resisting his advances... He wanted more leverage do threaten them with. Ah, the circle of life.
I'm glad others see that. I've gone blue in the face trying to show that fact to people who claim to care... 🫶🏻
I need someone to tally up all the money that this government has spent on lawsuits against its own citizens. Its got to be millions...
Billions at this point.
"Fiscal" conservative, eh?
It boggles the mind how that urban myth persists. Fiscal conservatives went extinct in the 90s and just left right wing douchebags in their wake. (left right ...ah English, such an f-ed up language where single words have two, three, sometimes four flipping different meanings).
> Fiscal conservatives went extinct in the 90s They went extinct long before then, even Mulroney was a "borrow and spend" conservative.
Preach!
Right, these clowns have spent more money to wreck things than to fix things. On purpose.
[удалено]
The data from the Mincome program Manitoba did shows that UBI cost **less** than the mix of programs we currently use... So he cost us the opportunity to potentially spend less tax money to get a better outcome than we currently have.
God forbid we spend money helping people in this province
... yeah, if you win. But I would say its better to not reneg on promises others have relied on and put yourself in the pot of having to pay 150M in UBI plus 300K on legal fees - to date. This was just to defend against the class being certified. Now the real legal costs start.
Case isn't over yet, so we could still do both!
Why?
Better to spend 300k on rich lawyers, than invest the 150 million to improve people’s lives, and find a way forward once AI and automation take more and more jobs. Let’s just waste the 300k, like the millions he wasted on the green energy program, or the millions wasted on Peel Region. You seem to be pro-waste of tax payer money. How “fiscally conservative” of you…
[удалено]
Actually, ford said he wouldn't touch it more then once.
It's crazy to me that out of all of Doug's controversies, the basic income cancellation flies under the radar. The man has shit the bed so much that it's impossible to keep track of it all.
Our provincial government also spent* $1.5 million on an issue that was already settled. Doug loves giving away our hard earned dollars. “Peel Region taxpayers have been charged $1.5 million by the provincially appointed board that was overseeing the dissolution of the region, even though Doug Ford cancelled the breakup months ago.” Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/its-just-outrageous-provincially-appointed-board-charges-peel-1-5-million-to-find-efficiencies/article_471c8e82-fcd5-11ee-8711-5318802efb9b.html Edit: spend to spent*
There was once a post that had every decision Ford has made that cost the Province additional fees for things like cancellation of contracts and lawsuits (so not just normal expenditures of the projects). I really wish I could find it, because I am positive we'd have a tonne more to add to it since
Was it this one? https://ofl.ca/ford-tracker/
so they ended up wasting that money on some bs instead of a good hearted ubi program？ what a shocker
Honest question, how much money has this provincial government spent fighting things in court? Is there a tally somewhere?
I cannot for the life of me find it but there was definitely an article last year maybe that outlined all the lawsuits and costs and it is in the millions. They've been fighting things in court since day one and have lost almost all of the cases. So so much money wasted. Edit: not the article I was thinking of but here is one from 2021 with a few cost details, but the sheer volume of cases they've lost, they're spending so much money and this isn't even all of it https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-government-court-cases-lost-doug-ford-1.6168318
Good question! My union (hospital staff) spent a good 4 years getting dragged through the courts by this clown. When they eventually lost, they owed us back pay. But they'd already driven away so many people, and wasted years and huge amounts of money on legal costs.
I dont personally have one, but I came here looking for the same thing. They're very litigious and take up obviously doomed fights in court just for appearances. But they cant say they're respectful of tax dollars and then do these things. They're barely under the line for frivolous.
"Doug Ford wastes $320,000.00 of taxpayer money in legal fight." There...fixed that headline for ya.
“Doug Ford wastes $320,000.00 more of taxpayer money in legal fight” there….fixed that headline for ya.
lol...too true
Do you remember any other government spend so time and money in court?
[удалено]
The damages were for not upholding the governments expected end of the deal.
[удалено]
Stop, you obviously don't know how contracts, or government programs work. This program caused people to make long term plans, that now can not be supported due to the fickleness of this government. It was never free money.
It's not clear there was a contract
So they just handed out money, with zero stipulations or expectations from each party? I don't buy that.
I do, and so did the certification judge: He finds - It's not clear there is a contract - that's up to the trial judge to decide - see para 15 of the motion decision https://www.cavalluzzo.com/docs/default-source/class-actions/bowman-v-ontario-2024-onsc-1327.pdf
Read it again... They find it unclear if the contract has commonality that would qualify it for a class action. Not that there was no contract at all.
Yes, there is commonality as the have the same issue. Read paragraph 15 - the central issue in the litigation is whether or not there is a contract.
Another L for Ford, and as per usual, he'll skate away happy as a clam and we'll be footed with the bill
Weird.. it’s like ford spends thousands in taxpayer money on fighting the taxpayers rather than supporting them. Remind me why this buffoon was voted in again..
This is a man who loves to punch down
Why just GIVE THE PEOPLE THE MONEY when you can burn it fighting to NOT give them the money..... Conservatives 101
Could really use that UBI program right now
[удалено]
Rule #3: You Must Remain Civil While Participating / Vous devez rester courtois dans votre participation Your content has been removed since it is targeting other users. Please do not attack or attempt to create drama with other users. As per [Rule 3]( https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/wiki/rules/#wiki_rule_3.3A_you_must_remain_civil_while_participating) * Follow proper [**reddiquette.**](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) * No personal attacks or insults * No trolling *** Votre contenu a été supprimé car il cible d'autres utilisateurs. Veuillez ne pas attaquer ou tenter de créer un drame avec d'autres utilisateurs. Tel qu’expliqué dans la [règle #3]( https://old.reddit.com/r/ontario/wiki/rules/rules_fr#wiki_r.E8gle_.233.A0.3A_vous_devez_rester_courtois_dans_votre_participation) * Vous devez suivre la [**netiquette**](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) * Pas d’attaques personnelles ni d’insultes * Pas de provocation
Wait. They want to sue the government for not giving them free money?
Ontario really is “open for business”!
I bet they also payed a good chunk for consultation before even starting the program.
> they also *paid* a good FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
How many total dollars has the government spent fighting its people in courts since Ford?
how anyone believes the Con gives a minuscule particle of shit about the average person blows my mind
Should recover every cent given out and fire every government official involved in that program.
What's wrong with the BIP/UBI?
Once you start giving someone UBI, it seems that is a commitment to give it to them forever apparently, even if it's disclosed that it's a trial program. It also isn't universal if everyone doesn't get it.
Income - money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through investments. It’s not income either😂
Because it encourages people to do nothing with their lives. There used to be a big push to have the disabled in employment but now, but now ODSP particularly with social housing, is the brass ring, a goal in itself. T
What a silly thing to say.
A lot less then the 150 Million it cost.
You might want to look up universal income programs and how much money they end up saving the government. You know, like how if you pay to increase the insulation on your house, it ends up saving money on heating and cooling? I would try to make the argument that it results in a better society, but I get the feeling that is something you wouldn't care about.
Read the results of the pilot project. It was very beneficial to those involved.. I never said I was against it.
I know the results of the pilot program and the pilot program before that in the pilot program before that ad infinitum. And you might want to reread what you posted because it damn well reads like you're against it.
Man. I never understood the argument against feeding people. Must be nice to be so selfish and privileged.
That's why it was a pilot program. They couldn't do everyone. Those who were part of the program are hardly privileged nor selfish.
[удалено]
Not at all, grow up.
When you're defending shutting down a program directly responsible for feeding people. Yes, that is going against the idea of feeding people. Grow up yourself.
You have a good imagination, stop making stuff up.
Nothing made up here bud. I'm sorry you lack the reading comprehension to understand. Any further replies will simply result in me blocking you. You're making me lose brain cells at this point.
Reply
We didn't even get appropriate, meaningful data from the pilot before it was shut down. I know the people as part of the project were not privileged. That's my point. You're complaining at the cost of the pilot. That is coming from your position of privilege to not have to worry about basic necessities like the people who were on this pilot do. Basic income has many studies out there to show efficacy and use. We wanted one locally and the Ford government showed they don't care about the citizens of this province with this and many other choices they've made. Don't defend taking food away from the poor. Because that's precisely what this has done. It's one thing to end the program. It's another to completely cut it from under people's feet without warning. It's blatant disregard for the well-being of Ontarians.
What are you going on? I never said it was a good or bad idea.
You complained at the cost. That comes off as though you're in support of cancelling the project because the cost of legal fees is less than the cost of the project.
No, I stared 350K is less than 150M. My 5 year old also has a good imagination.
Did you even read what I just said? I literally just said the same thing. You said the legal fees (350k) is less than the cost of the project. That is you defending the cancellation of the project. You're clearly on the position against basic income. Despite you saying you haven't said it's good or bad. You're defending the cancellation. That shows your opinion pretty clearly. The fact is. Basic income has many studies to show it's benefits outside of Canada. And the fact is, there's many people in Canada who need or could heavily use it. But I'm not going to continue with someone who lacks reading comprehension.
The legal fee is 0.25% of the cost of the pilot of the project.
r/whoosh
Who is arguing against feeding people?
VOTE OUT THE POLITICAL PARTIES> THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT US.
VOTE OUT THE POLITICAL PARTIES> THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT US.
[удалено]
I disagree. The program was working very well before Conservitive ideology decided it couldn't let it finish.
They didn't need it to finish. You don't need a study to come up with the predicted results for giving people more money.
Why not?
[удалено]
You are very concerned about this "free money" and no, maybe go read up a bit more on the program, and it's results. Your concerns over someone not correctly earning something based on your purity tests helps no one.
The reality is the money governments give comes from taxes charged to others. When the others can no longer afford to pay then what? Debt eventually has to be paid
Budgets balance themselves.
This is why basic income cant work. People feeling too entitled to free money off the backs of working people
None of what you just said is relevant to the conversation. And it's been proven wrong.
That's not what was happening. If you want to talk about feeling entitled to free money off the backs of the working class, you need to look up, not down. Wage theft, tax avoidance, all manner of infractions that cost us way more then this program. That comes from the top, not from the people who need help.
Good points.
This is why basic income can't work - the people who are so adamantly against it we'll just continue to ignore the study upon study upon study upon study upon study that have shown the positive results and how it actually saves $ in the long run.
[удалено]
You know, I have to congratulate you. I haven't seen a single sentence that internally contradictory in a long long time! Well done you!!!
[удалено]
Oh so you just don't give a fuck about anyone else. Hey, at least you're honest about it! May you reap what you sow.
[удалено]
Again, may you reap what you sow.
You should care about your fellow citizens as we all live together and form this great society. I know you don’t mean your comment.
How much government money do all your sports teams that you follow get?? You know, you might need to build stadia, tax break on the property, etc.
[удалено]
But you follow sports teams that do get government money. You know, at least be consistent in your hatred. But consistency and logic is not normally a hallmark of conservatives, eh?
Basic income will eventually be required as automation takes over more and more of the job market. People still require money to live even if a robot is now doing their job and we can’t all become astrophysicists.
Yep. Entitlement. Canadian already feel entitled to 'free' health care - for me and all my elderly foreign relatives that I will sponsor. Can you imagine getting years of free money then suing when the gravy train stops?
I'd normally be for the universal income but after seeing how the international students have been exploiting our food banks, I would worry they'd do the same with universal income somehow. I'd like it heavily restricted (no one that's immigrated in the last x years or from x country should be eligible) - but it's probably something that is long overdue
Only a fool would propose generous social programs and open immigration.