Canada Needs To Bring Back The $1000 Bank Note

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

Brief History

The Bank Of Canada issued its first series of Canadian tender in 1935. The bills at that time were $1, $2, a commemorative $25, $500, and $1000. Fast forward to 2023, and only $5, $10, $50, and $100 are being produced and used as legal tender. Why? Some of these notes were only commemoratives, others succeeded in coin forms, while a certain one was unfairly discontinued. That is to be discussed later. As of January 01, 2021, the $1, $2, $25, $500 and $1,000 bills from every Bank Of Canada series are no longer legal tender. The $1 and the $2 notes stopped being issued in 1989 and 1996, respectively, and were succeeded with coins. The $25 and $500 notes were commemoratives, that were discontinued shortly after they were issued in 1935. The $1,000 note stopped being issued in 2000.

Are These Bills Worthless?

Removing legal tender status from these bills means that they are no longer considered money. This does not mean that the notes are worthless. It only means that they cannot be used in a cash transaction. The Bank Of Canada will continue to honour them at face value. Some of the rarer notes, such as the $25 and $500, can be worth significantly more than face value. To find out if your bank note may have a different value to collectors, you may refer to a collector’s catalog or obtain an evaluation from 2 or 3 money dealers who cater to the collection market.

Impact On Canadians

The Bank Of Canada says that these bank notes have not been produced in decades, so the decision to remove them from circulation has had little impact on most of us. I disagree. The only bill where I believe 99% of Canadians will not miss, would be the $25, $1, and $2 notes. For the $1 and $2 notes, they have been replaced with coins, so while the bills do not exist, at least the option to physically transact that amount still exists. The $25 was superficially close to the $20 bill, so I would agree that it was best left as a celebratory note. Though, some would argue that the same could be said for the $5 and $10 bills. If the $25 bill were brought back, I would be happy for it, but at the same time, I also do not mind its absence. Where I strongly disagree is the discontinuation of the $1000 bill. Once you learn the reason why it was discontinued, you too, might think it is unfair, and will want the $1000 to come back.

Why The $1000 Bill Was Discontinued

The $1000 bill was discontinued because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police urged the government to phase them out in 2000. The reason? The $1000 bill made money laundering too easy for criminals. Radio Canada International also mentions that counterfeiting and tax evasion were other complaints from the RCMP as to why the $1000 bill needed to go. While I certainly agree that money laundering is not something to be taken lightly, blaming the $1000 bill and asking for its discontinuation is quite frankly bad and is less freedom for Canadians. Case in point: The Bank Of Canada even admitted that it struggled eliminate the bill. 6 years later, 2006, there were still 1,000,000 of the bills still in circulation in 2006. What does that tell you? Canadians would have preferred to keep it in circulation. Unfortunately, there was no vocal backlash against this move, hence why the Government went ahead without asking for public input from citizens.

Now you might be thinking, if nobody complained about saving the $1000 bill, the public must have also agreed with the RCMP, right? No. At least, not everybody. Further proof is the fact that the Government had to create an incentive in order to force Canadians give them up: render them invalid tender in 2021. As discussed above, this move did not make them worthless; only worthless in cash transactions. They had to be exchanged at the Bank Of Canada for existing currency. This clearly tells us that if Government worked on actually improving the $1000 bill, such as making it out of the same modern polymers as existing bills, they would not need to discontinue it. As for the money laundering problem, there are many other solutions and financial crime preventatives that could have been done to tackle the problem. In the 23 years since its discontinuation, cyber security, and security in general has significantly improved. Therefore, All financial institutions, from large banks to small credit unions, need to do a better job with the tools and resources in place to significantly reduce financial crimes.

Expensive Times Call For Bigger Bills

Words like “Inflation”, “Cost Of Living”, and “Expensive” have been a very common theme for the 2020s thus far. Nearly everything is significantly more expensive than it was, say, 10 years ago. A flagship smartphone with top storage would have been $500 – $700. Now, a 1TB device from major companies readily tips the $2000. Vehicles, groceries, electronics, clothes, homes, and all: more expensive. I mentioned the word “Freedom” earlier. Imagine being able to pay for a smartphone, vehicle, large appliance, instrument, or other expensive items or services with physical cash? Want to buy that $50,000 all-electric car? 50 $1000 bills. Sony Xperia 1 IV? 1 $1000 and maybe 1-5 $100 bills. Baritone saxophone? 5 – 15 $1000 bills. While credit and debit cards may be commonly used, it is clear that not everybody prefers that method of payment, despite society trying so hard for cashless transactions. There is certainly nothing wrong with taps, swipes, and the entering of cards. However, for it to become the only use of a transaction would be dangerous, problematic, and a gross limitation of freedom.

The 2022 Rogers Communications outage that led to ATMs failing, is just 1 of many reasons why physical cash will always be important. And speaking of crisises, Canadian banks have admitted that they noticed a sharp rise of withdrawals during the heights of the COVID-19 pandemic. Speaking of COVID19, let us not forget the times when some retailers were refusing physical cash as a non-scientifically proven way to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The card terminals and buttons were no cleaner than cash. This led to major headlines centered around “Is It Legal For Businesses To Refuse Physical Cash?” And within much of them, people spoke out against cashless transactions. Canadians said that those restrictions added more anxiety, and grief on top of all the stressful things already happening during the pandemic. 

Resurrect The $1000 Bill

No need to fear the big, bad financial criminals at the cost of less options for everyone else. Big bills or not, criminals have, and will unfortunately continue to perform their activities. Better tools and collaborative actions between financial institutions will be the key for Canadians to safely enjoy the $1000 bill in its modern glory. If, by any unicorn-of-a-chance this write-up actually causes someone at the Bank Of Canada or some other financial leader to become motivated enough to resurrect it, it would only be natural for the $500 bill to come back as well. The gap between $100 and $1000 will be problematic and irritating without an intermediate bill to bridge the distance.

What Would The New $1000 and $500 Bills Look Like?

I was going to end this write-up at “Resurrect The $1000”. Not too long after completion, I realized that I could not proceed to notifying the World Wide Web about the existence of this particular write-up, without answering a critical question: what would these bills look like in their modern forms? I can say with 99.9% certainty that the $500 bill is not going to come back with John Alexander Macdonald. Canada has been moving ahead with taking him off of things, such as renaming buildings that had his name, and how he no longer appears on the present $10 bill. Who should take his place? If you ask me, a bird. Which kind of bird? I say the trumpeter swan. He is a large, beautiful, native, controversy-free being that would make a wonderful face to the $500 bill.

Now the $1000 is where things get interesting. For much of its life, it bared the face of Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen died back in 2022, so I do not think any new bills would feature her face anymore. King Charles III? Based on headlines and other sources, Canadians made it fairly clear that they do not want him on their money. So who will go on the $1000 bill? Pinicola enucleator. Do not recognize her? Pine Grosbeak is her English name. In 1988, the reverse side of the $1000 bill featured 2 cute, little pine grosbeaks. So if this bill were to be brought back sometime in the 2020s, it would make sense to have pine grosbeaks on both the obverse and reverse sides of the modern bill.

Are Organic Essential Oils Worth It?

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored. This article is affiliated with Plant Therapy.

Smelling Good Since Ancient Times

Oils, ointments, and perfumes have been used since ancient times. Early humans quickly caught on that some plants smelled a lot better than others. Not only did some plants just simply smell good, they had other benefits too, including anti-bacterial properties, aromatherapy, naturally repelling pests, and other benefits. The Ancient Egyptians used many types of essential oils, with their favourites being Frankincense, Sandalwood, Myrrh, Cinnamon, and Cypress. During those times, ancient peoples did not have the type pesticides available now. This means that they had to make repellents through all-naturel means, whether by burning certain plants, using the oils from effective plants, or even using animals to repel animals. Cats for instance, became widely known and used for hunting vermin. Even ducks, have their use for eating unwanted bugs.

Conventional Versus Organic

There is a noticeable price difference between conventionally grown versus organically grown essential oil. The cost of organic essential oil can cost anywhere from 20% to 70% more than their conventionally grown counterparts. Why? This is due to the fact that it is more expensive to grow and protect plants without mass-produced chemicals or the use of genetic modification. Aside from “sticker shock” some people also criticize organic products as not being worth the asking price for sticker label, and that conventionally grown products can be of the same quality. Is there any truth to these claims? It is certainly true that conventionally grown essential oils can still smell good and perform their functions. However, to say that organic grown essential oils are scams asking for higher prices is false. If such product claims to be organic without a label of certification however, then that product could very well be a scam.

A Label With Meaning

When a product says that it is free of common allergens like dairy, nuts, and shellfish, it is because it has been legally certified to make that claim. Likewise, the same is true for organically grown essential oils. Companies cannot just place a Canada Organic or USDA Organic label as if they were cosmetic decorations. To use this label, producers must demonstrate a commitment towards more natural and natural-based farming and/or foraging practices. This same approach applies to essential oils. Suppliers and companies dedicated to organic standards are committed to creating high-quality, safe, and pure oils that have been derived from crops subjected to natural and organic farming and production practices.

Standards

Producers and companies who seek to sell essential oils with organic claims must adhere to standards set by locally governing authorities as well as any other labelling regulations or restrictions in the area they are being sold. In the United States, organic claims must adhere to USDA conventions and FDA regulations for cosmetic labeling and safety, as stated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling (FP&L) Act. In Canada, The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) regulates the use of the Canada organic logo. Only products with organic content that is greater than or equal to 95% may be labelled or advertised as “organic” or bear the organic logo.

A genuine organic essential oil is one that has not only been derived through the use of natural methods as much as possible, but also where farming practices have been conscious of soil quality. Example: the introduction of potentially harmful agents by avoiding mono-cropping or the use of genetically modified organisms, and the end-to-end manufacturing and production process of the oil is accounted for in terms of chemical contaminants. What does this all mean? Organic essential oils represent an act and philosophy that is created to be environmentally friendly, sustainable, healthy, and more supportive towards the agricultural community as a whole.

Are Organic Essential Oils Really Better?

If the essential oil is certified organic, then yes, it really is better. As noted above, a company cannot legally place “Certified Organic” on a label, without following the legal requirements. The production of organic essentials oils is therefore better for the environment, especially from plants that would conventionally use a lot of pesticides. This makes consumers feel good and confident knowing that their oils were responsibly sourced and produced. The next question to address would be a matter of whether the quality of such oil is truly better: would organic peppermint oil smell or taste better than conventionally grown peppermint oil? At this point, people would very well know that the organically grown oil is better for the environment, but what about the actual quality of the finished product?

Truthfully, organic production does not automatically guarantee an oil will be better than its conventional counterpart. Organic also does not mean 100% free of pesticides and pollution, and regulators are aware of this, hence why products are not allowed to say “100% organic”, regardless of certification. However, because certified organic products are grown as naturally as possible, this does tend to result in oil of better quality. The drastic reduction of toxicity is helpful for people with sensitive skin. After all, organic farming is both a philosophy and practice that one does not pick up casually on the whim. Much care, thought, ethics, and yes even love, has to be put into it.

Where To Buy

Organic essential oils can be bought at a wide range of stores online or in-person. The United States in particular stands out for having a gigantic catalogue of stores and brands that either wholly or predominantly focus on essential oils. Plant Therapy is one of them. The Twin Falls, Idaho-based company was founded in 2011 and says that their mission is to bring people natural living options at an affordable price. Their people-first promise keeps their customers, employees, and community at the heart of everything they do. Plant Therapy has grown to be a trusted place to buy essential oils, body care, and household items. More than 10 years later, the company has grown, but maintains that they have retained the same good team dedicated bringing people quality natural living.

In terms of organic essential oils Plant Therapy offers the following, including many others not listed here:

Plant Therapy ships internationally to most countries, with Canada and the United Kingdom being honourable mentions on their international shipping list.

2022 Battery Electric Vehicles Canada

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

2022

The 2022 year did not bring a lot of new models to Canadian shores. It did, however, see a lot of unveilings from various brands. It also marked the opening of General Motors Canada’s first full-scale electric vehicle manufacturing plant, a major amendment to the United States electric vehicle tax credit bill, and several other events to be covered within this write-up.

Buy American Becomes Buy North American

Back in 2021, Canada sounded the alarm when Canadians learned that the United States electric vehicle tax credit bill would only pertain to vehicles built within the United States Of America. Canadian leaders and workers were fearful that it would result in American brands closing factories in Canada to move to the United States, causing thousands to lose their jobs. In 2022, United States Democrats Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Joe Manchin have agreed to propose to get rid of the tax-credit plan that favoured American-made electric vehicles. Instead, the Senate majority leader and the West Virginia moderate are proposing an amendment to Joe Biden’s climate and health bill that would expand the credits to include all of North America.

While this may have breathed a sigh of relief for stakeholders, politicians, leaders, and manufacturers, a major problem still remains: lack of Canadian-born and built electric vehicle companies in Canada. As AK Motors CEO Kaminski warned Trudeau in a statement last year, Canada cannot continue to be 100% reliant on building vehicles for foreign companies, as they can change things as they best see fit. The 2024 U.S. elections for example, could end up changing the course of trade, should the future President choose not to care about Canada and other countries very much.

Canada’s First Full-scale Electric Vehicle Manufacturing Plant

On December 05, 2022, the Prime Minister Of Canada, Justin Trudeau, announced the opening of the GM CAMI plant in Ingersoll, Ontario. The first full-scale commercial electric vehicle plant in the country. The CAMI assembly plant was retooled to make the BrightDrop Zevo 600. The BrightDrop Zevo 600 is an electric light commercial vehicle that is powered by Ultium batteries and Ultium drive motors and purpose-built for the delivery of goods and services. The estimated range is said to be 400 kilometres on a full charge. Interestingly, it was only 8 months ago that the government announced investments to retool the CAMI EV assembly plant in Ingersoll.

20% Of New Vehicles Sold In Canada By 2026 Must Be Zero Emission Vehicles

On December 21, 2022, Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, announced that the Government of Canada has published proposed regulations that set ZEV sales targets for manufacturers and importers of new passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, and pickup trucks. The regulations will require that at least 20% of new vehicles sold in Canada will be zero emission by 2026, at least 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2035. These targets will help increase supply so that more Canadians who want a ZEV can buy one. In addition to making sure there are more ZEVs to buy, the Government also announced the following investments to make buying and charging an electric vehicle easier for Canadians:

  • Invested in 50,000 more electric vehicle charging stations across the country, for almost 85,000 federally-funded chargers across Canada by 2027. This is in addition to charging stations supported by provincial governments and the private sector.
  • Renewed the program that provides Canadians up to $5,000, and businesses up to $10,000, toward the cost of buying or leasing a ZEV. Over 180,000 individuals and businesses have taken advantage of this program to date.
  • Making historic investments in electric vehicle manufacturing in Canada, which will mean made-in-Canada ZEVs by Canadian auto workers and for Canadian drivers to buy.

Danielle Smith Wants To “Protect” Alberta From Electric Vehicles

On December 22, 2022, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith made 3 Tweets in regards to Canada’s battery electric vehicle plans, particularly the 2026 mandate:

1. The Liberal-NDP plan to outlaw non-electric vehicles will drive up vehicle costs and take away your freedom to choose what vehicle makes sense for you and your family.

2. It will also cost billions of your taxes to upgrade the grid in a very short period of time, increasing your electricity costs and potentially impacting grid stability.

3. Electric, diesel, and gas powered vehicles are all choices Albertans should have depending on their personal needs, budgets, and circumstances. As Premier, I will make sure you have a choice when it comes to the vehicle you drive- the NDP and Liberals can butt out. 

Comments such as these coming from a Premier are troubling. Not only are these comments false, but ironically would suffocate Alberta and cause it to fall behind in a global push forwards. An opposing critic had also called her out for trying to make something that is not a real problem, look like a problem, while ignoring real problems happening right now with the faltering healthcare system, wages not matching inflation, homelessness, and several others.

Debunking These Harmful Myths 1-by-1

1. Outlawing combustion engine vehicles will not drive up vehicle costs. If anything, as more and more electric cars are being produced from major giants like General Motors, Ford, Honda, and others, especially under their non-luxury brands, the costs of electric vehicles are actually going down. Consumers no longer have to buy a Tesla if they need something with a range of 400 kilometres or greater. Pickup trucks, sedans, and crossovers — all can be had in all-electric form, making the remark about being unable to choose a vehicles that makes sense for your family false. 

2. “Billions” is a greatly exaggerated figure. Would have been true if Alberta were starting from scratch with the deployment of stations. However, this is absolutely not the case. As of January 2022, Alberta has 255 charging stations throughout the province. On top of this, the government has even given them millions to setup stations for electric vehicles. Making it look as though Albertans were going to bare the brunt of this burden alone is straight up false. The grid will not become damaged either. Alberta has more than enough time and resources to improve the grid. If the province were to take Smith’s to heart, then the province will fall into an actual crisis on top of already existing problems.

3. Internal combustion vehicles, whether people want to accept it or not, are mechanically inferior to all-electric vehicles. This alone could be an entire article, but in short, the absence of the engine and all its complex parts and piping, means far fewer maintenance, reliability, and long-term savings. And no hazardous tailpipe emissions. As already mentioned, there are already numerous sizes, classes, and price points of all-electric vehicles for consumers to choose. The remark about how she wants the Liberal and New Democratic Party to butt out, only proves the opposing critics right about her making unnecessary noise about something that is not a problem, while not focusing on actual problems happening.

Alberta Can Do It

Alberta has the fourth largest fleet of electric vehicles (EVs) in Canada behind Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. The availability of reliable charging infrastructure is a key factor in electric vehicle adoption. Alberta is a land very rich in resources. It even has the potential to become an electric vehicle powerhouse, thanks to its richness. However, if people are fed with fake propaganda, believe it in it, and act upon it, this will gravely hurt Alberta’s innovation and growth to match forward-moving provinces, and the rest of the world.

Project Arrow

On October 19, 2022, APMA revealed a peek of the Project Arrow’s skeleton to attendees of its 70th annual conference in Windsor, Ontario. APMA plans a global reveal at the 2023 CES annual trade show in Las Vegas. The burning question during the conference has been answered: will the Arrow see full-scale production or not? Flavio Volpe says the possibility of an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or investor with deep pockets to sweep in and commit to mass produce the Arrow is not 0, but at this moment nothing is in the works. Volpe insists Arrow’s purpose is to act as a demonstration model of Canadian potential and talent, rather than a tool to entice manufacturers to start scaling — which, he believes, could cost a billion dollars.

While developing and making cars is no cheap task, Canada has plenty of affluent OEMs and investors that can easily fund mass-scale production. It is only a matter of will. If the Project was attractive to the point that APMA had to choose 58 Canadian industry partners out of 534 applicants, then there is certainly an interested investor and OEM watching and willing to produce it. Who will it be? 2023 will hopefully reveal. If the vehicle is a success at the 2023 Consumer Electronics Show, it will make it all the more likely for the Arrow to become a production car.

AK Motor

May 30, 2022, The Maple Majestic brand of AK Motors unveiled a video of a variant of their namesake car, then an official media statement the following day. This concept variant is called the Maple Majestic Kombi-Kross. The objective is to offer supreme winter handling capabilities and off-road attributes while providing additional storage space for longer trips. The startup’s statement also mentions that several more body configurations based on the existing concepts will be presented in the coming months as well as the technologies behind these vehicles. Between then and now, December 2022, no other concepts have been revealed. Could this mean a pickup truck concept in 2023? Time will tell. Given that there is not even a functional prototype of the original model, AK Motor may be better off creating a working prototype first, before exploring other concepts. If they manage to pull off both for 2023, then that would surely be an interesting surprise for the Canadian automotive industry.

New To Canada For 2022

  • Kia EV6
  • BMW i4
  • BMW iX
  • Volvo C40 Recharge
  • Rivian R1T and R1S *first deliveries to employees in Vancouver*
  • Toyota bZ4X *2023 bZ4X has limited inventory and is only available at select authorized dealers in British Columbia and Quebec* -Toyota Canada as of December 2022
  • Genesis GV60

Graveyards And Orange Shirts

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

Grave

Many children went away.

It was no field trip. It was no fun and games. It was pain and suffering.

Many children never returned home. They died and filled the graves unmarked.

Their parents wept. Nobody cared.

The bee has stung. The wolf has bitten. The black bear swiped. The raccoon robbed. The river dried up.

Later, a large gathering of all sorts peoples show up, donned in orange shirts, and faces of serious demeanors.

The people have finally learned about the tragic losses.

The people have learned more about the First Peoples; the Indigenous Peoples.

Universal Basic Income

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income, often abbreviated UBI,  is a government-sponsored program in which every citizen or eligible resident would receive an unconditional flat monthly payment. Their income, employment status, or productivity levels would not be taken into consideration. The purpose behind this type of universal payment is to reduce the cost of living stress faced by a country’s residents, which would allow them to focus on education, improving their job skills, dealing with personal matters, or other things while having enough income to meet basic living requirements. Since UBI is indiscriminate of status, it ensures every resident gets something and that nobody gets left from missing a criteria, two, or three, the way other payments or programs do. In the most common UBI implementation, identical monthly payments are made to all individuals. The tax system then ensures that funds are returned to the system from those with higher incomes. 

History

“No penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it’s their only way of getting food.”
— Thomas More

The international COVID-19 pandemic from 2019 and onward, and the significantly increased costs of living has brought more attention to Basic Income than ever before. However, the concept of it is not new. Thomas More introduced the concept of guaranteed income in his 1516 book, Utopia. Since then, many people over the centuries have advocated some form of basic sustenance. An early example would be Thomas Jefferson in 1776 who believed in giving any propertyless individual 20 hectares of land willing to farm it. A recent notable person is American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, whose signature policy is what he calls the “Freedom Dividend“, a Universal Basic Income in the form of $1,000 monthly for every American adult.

Experiments, But No Full Commitment

Many countries from around the world have experimented with various projects and pilots. As of August 2022, there are no countries that have a permanent Universal Basic Income in place. Canada, the United States, Brazil, Kenya, France, Spain, Netherlands, Finland, India, and Japan are some of the countries that have experimented with it. In Canada, there has been 2 forms experimental income: The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (MINCOME) and Ontario Basic Income Pilot. Though the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit was not a universal income, it has highlighted numerous topics surrounding the need for a permanent basic income that does not leave anyone behind the way it did.

The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (MINCOME) was conducted between 1974 and 1979 under the joint sponsorship of Canada and Manitoba. It was geared toward measuring the results of low-income families in Dauphin and rural Manitoba. Over the four years that the program ended up running in the 1970s, an average family in Dauphin was guaranteed an annual income of 16,000 Canadian dollars. The results? Rates of hospitalizations fell 8.5%, improvements in mental health, a rise in the number of children completing high school, and more businesses started up during the time. Most notably, it did not cause people to stop working. The exceptions were new mothers and high school students. For new mothers it meant more time for them to take care of the home and children. For high school students they could finally focus on completing school to land better careers, as opposed to dropping out of school for farm and factory jobs. The results after financial security ended? Small businesses went defunct, anxiety returned, and some people even left Dauphin good. MINCOME was closed down in 1979 under the Progressive Conservative of Manitoba government of Sterling Lyon and the federal Progressive Conservative Party of Joe Clark. They cited oil price shocks, inflation, and the increased number of people seeking the assistance, more than what the project budgeted for. The results of the study at the time were not revealed, hence what led to the governments making this misinformed assumption. It was not until 2008, when Evelyn Forget revealed the results significantly positive effects it had. The papers had been previously locked away and abandoned.

The Ontario Basic Income Pilot (OBIP) was announced by Premier Kathleen Wynne in Hamilton in April 2017. The first phase to enroll participants, was successfully completed in April 2018, with full participation across the three pilot sites:

1.Hamilton, Brantford, Brant County
2.Thunder Bay, along with the Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge, Township of Shuniah, Municipality of Neebing, Township of Conmee, Township of O’Connor, and Township of Gillies
3. Lindsay

The purpose of the pilot was to test how a basic income might help people living on low incomes better meet their basic needs, while improving outcomes in the following: food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, education and training, and employment and labour market participation. Unfortunately, The three-year, $150-million program was scrapped by Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government, Doug Ford, in July 2018. At the time, then-social services minister Lisa MacLeod, stated the decision was made because the program was failing to help people become “independent contributors to the economy.” Predictably, the decision and statements faced intense criticism, with many particularly pointing out that the experiment did not even get time to gather results, and that the PC violated the promise to allow the program to finish. Former Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath called the decision to end the project absolutely disgraceful. Some participants have spoken out about how receiving the basic income had improved their lives — and how the program’s premature termination has left them fretting about the future.

Why

At this point, a critical question must be asked: why? Why is there no country on the planet with Universal Basic Income? Why do income experiments never turn into permanent programs, despite countless factual studies, reports, and organizations specialized in basic income with massive datasheets and media, that prove its efficacy? 3 persistent reasons:

1. Excessive paranoia that nobody will work, thus causing a labour shortage.

2. There is no money to fund it.

3. It will make inflation worse

Labour Shortage Paranoia

This is by far the most common point against Universal Basic Income. If implemented it will make people not want to work because they are given free money, causing millions to quit their jobs en masse. Utterly false! Experiments in Canada and around the world have proven that a guaranteed income of the sort, made people more willing to take risks with starting businesses, or finishing school allowing them to pursue more advanced careers. The real problem at play is not a labour shortage, but a wage shortage. If businesses truly cared that much about retaining and gaining employees, they would not only raise wages, but also treat workers better. Make them feel valued. Make them feel safe. Make them feel like there is a purpose. And particularly relevant to these times of international pandemics, an option to work full-time from home, for jobs that can be done remotely. UBI allows people to have more bargaining power, which drives healthy competition for businesses to up their wages and treatment practices. Bullying, intimidating, and using demeaning tactics to get people into working is counterproductive, and creates cycles of toxic work, desperation, burnout, and resignations. The mere fact that society is more afraid of jobs vacancies going unfilled, than private pockets being topped up, is what people should really be frightened about. The real common cause of labour shortages are things such as an ageing work force retiring at a higher rate than the working population can grow, graduates taking longer to graduate or secure work, insufficient immigration levels, and others.

Too Expensive

Critics are quick to point out how expensive implementing Universal Basic Income would be. It is easy to look at the numbers and say that $50 – 90 billion in the case of Canada, or 2.8 to 3.1 trillion in America’s situation is an astronomical amount of money. Indeed it is. What critics fail to point out is that UBI money would go right back into the economy. People that previously did not have purchasing power, will now have it. The more people there are with money, the more money can be spent on goods and services. This creates jobs, economics stimulus, allows more people to focus on school to pursue more specialized careers, and a vast assortment of other benefits. UBI is not even about printing new money; rather it is about allocating existing money directly to a nation’s citizens. Redistribution of income and wealth from some individuals and businesses to citizens through social mechanism such as taxation, welfare, public services, land reform, or monetary policies is by far the easiest way to get it done. Saying it is too expensive is a lie. It is lack of political will. It is poverty and the current programs that are supposed to combat it that are extremely expensive.

Inflation

The inflation argument is based on the myth that in order to fund Universal Basic Income, the government would have to print billions of new dollars, thus making the cost of everything go up in the process. This has already been debunked numerous times, including within this write-up itself. UBI does not require an additional excess amount of money. Believers of this myth either do not even know what inflation is or intentionally deny that UBI can feasibly done through redistribution of existing money. Inflation is when the total value of currency increases faster than the total value of goods and services in the economy. This causes the price of goods and services to rise, in attempt to get that excess money spent. While in theory it sounds good, it leads to overconsumption, hoarding commodities, thus causing a vicious battle of even more inflation and consumer shortages. On the opposite side of the spectrum, deflation happens when the money in circulation remains, while there is an excess of goods and services causing the value of it to go up. Too much deflation will cause people to hold onto money, leading to a decrease in consumer spending, lowered business profits, pushing unemployment, and makes the economy shrink. Therefore, a small, consistent amount of inflation is actually good. Even if UBI were to be funded with new money, it would balance itself out because more people with purchasing power means manufacturers and businesses will be able to scale up accordingly with the good and services they offer to keep things balanced. If hundreds of billions can be printed to go to many other sources including banks, bureaucrats and CEOs, without causing inflation, this same money can certainly be redistributed in better ways. 

Inefficacy Of Existing Programs

“A one-size-fits-all cheque is not going to end the discrimination or poor workplace standards that follow around low-income workers.” — Critic
There are several things wrong with this statement. Firstly, it falls once again into the persistent myth that Universal Basic Income is a handout to make people dodge work. Secondly, it assumes UBI touts itself as the panacea for society’s problems. That is not the point of UBI. Informed UBI supporters are aware and admit that this is not point of UBI. The purpose of UBI is to ensure that nobody falls through the gaps by not meeting certain criteria. An extremely common problem with present anti-poverty programs. UBI certainly will not make poor workplace and discrimination disappear in the snapping of a finger. It will, however, give people more bargaining power to refuse terrible workplaces, and push them change their practices and pay. This will put the needed pressure on business to create a competition that aims for the top. To assume UBI is supposed to be a welfare handout that would rapidly brush problems away, akin to that of a mythical winged being scattering sparkles, rainbows, and gold is both condescending and nonsensical.

I am a single mother who has chosen to stay home to raise my children. Yes, money does help. I refuse to accept social assistance because they treat you like a criminal, the staff are vicious towards the people they serve. Period. UBI would work. The reasons people are poor are societal. Middle and upper class people seem to believe it’s a choice to be poor. Their parents raised them to ignore and have contempt towards poverty. — Anonymous Mother

While this mother’s comment obviously does not reflect how all staff or classes treat people, as some can be nice, it does highlight a significant and extremely common reality: embarrassment and stigmatization. A lot of people, whether they are rich or not, look down very heavily on people using disability and welfare programs. They view them as unproductive leeches who drain the working population’s life force and money. On top of this, these very same programs that are supposed to help people on welfare ironically keep most of them poor, known as the poverty trap. This is because the programs themselves do not even pay enough for these individuals to sufficiently meet their needs. It can be argued for welfare that it is supposed to temporary, which it is, but disability on the other hand can be either permanent or temporary. Here is where things get very distorted: When these individuals do attempt to work, they get their benefits clawed once they make a certain amount of money, which itself is not even enough for basic survival. This forces them to have to have to work reduced hours to keep the pay, but live with substandard income, or completely forgo their benefit. If the individual is disabled, this is not practical and can be rather dangerous.

Society must not bully and intimidate the disabled, poor, and vulnerable into working. It should be securing them and making sure their basic needs are properly met at all times without embarrassing and stigmatizing them.  Majority of people do not choose to become disabled. They are either born with a condition, or something environmental like an accident can cause it. Anyone could become disabled; poor, middle-classed, and rich. The difference? If a rich person becomes injured, permanent or not, they have access to top-notch doctors, often private staff, to make sure they are given the best condition at all times. On top of this, they have all their benefits and royalties that still gives them more money than some people working an entire year. The middle class and poor? Not so much. Even if the healthcare is free, they do not get the same quick access and specialized care as easily as a wealthy person could.

Let It Go

People need to let go of this mindset that every single person: healthy, bent, crooked, sick and all must work. It is unrealistic and callous. Some people are never going to work. Some people are never going to be employable. Perhaps the general definition of work itself may be problematic: going to an office or business to be told what to do under a clock and supervision. Work can take on many forms. It can be as traditionally described, but done remotely. It can also be done independently without supervision, with the individual setting the term, scope and pay; independent-contracting. Some people will never end up being useful to society in anyway at all, despite all the efforts to help them. Are these type of people the majority? Thankfully not. If that were the case, the world would not make it to this present time in history. Could it be that if some people had a guaranteed consistent income for proper sustenance, that even if they do not make a “good employee” that they might good keeper around a neighborhood? A good volunteer? Yes, people can be valuable to society in other ways than working through a job. Nobody asked to be born. Nobody asked for a price tag on food, water, shelter, and necessities. If society can make sure to put a price tag on everything, it can guarantee an income to pay for the basics. It is all a matter of will.