# Guaranteed income-coming to Canada?



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> In Ontario meanwhile, the government in its 2016 budget said it would proceed with a pilot project on a basic guaranteed income,


http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/03/09/guaranteed-income-coming-to-canada/



> The government of Ontario is planning to launch a pilot project to test out a guaranteed basic income.
> 
> What that pilot project will look like, and what it will cost, is not yet known.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/26/ontario-basic-income_n_9328264.html

It's really interesting What that pilot project will look like  Any ideas?!


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Simple. If you've got a pulse, they pay you.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

steve41 said:


> Simple. If you've got a pulse, they pay you.


And I'm sure that there'll be some "resourceful" individuals who'll manage to collect on behalf of those long without a pulse.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

My guess is that the income will be quite modest. Maybe something like $8k for adults and $6k for children annually. Claw back in the 30-40% of income range.

Just guessing. I think the big thing is just trying it. We can pilot it and understand how it works better. It is a prudent thing to do, because it might be a very relevant policy tool in the coming decades as more and more jobs can be automated.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

The reserves are good example how well it will work. All these social programs take away incentives to be productive why bother the leaches will take it away. Each wolf, each fox, each rabbit, each deer etc, except man as of late provides for its own existence or is granted none @ all. Has there has ever been a time in history with so many rights ? Right to school, right to eat, right to free money or what ever as long as someone else pays for it. Who promised everyone all these rights ? Years ago lot of times if someone went on welfare they would pay it back they took pride. Now days I m not sure if anyone ever pays back welfare. Esteem entails that one is capable & worthy of living as well as committed to that which is good & true. Well pay people for nothing I m sure their self esteem will be boosted (not). The political correct thing is it to confuse rights with freedom ? We bring in all these Refugees give them money & provide for them & how many do you think will pay back the money. It should be required. The big bankers with wall street rig the game want to leach of everyone, Got to go finish post latter unless I forget that which I was going to post


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> ...Years ago lot of times if someone went on welfare they would pay it back they took pride. Now days I m not sure if anyone ever pays back welfare...


And I'm not sure if anyone ever did!


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

A couple of days ago cant remember if it was safe haven preservation of capital web site or financial survival network I either read or listened to audio where an american guy said it was common years ago for those that came upon hard times & had to go on welfare when they got back on their feet they would work hard to pay it back. I have a lot of respect for people like that


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

It is going to come back to bit people the markets are in a huge bubble maybe its because people want something for nothing that a mother of all tops will be put in the next few years.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> My guess is that the income will be quite modest. Maybe something like $8k for adults and $6k for children annually. Claw back in the 30-40% of income range.


I just don't understand from where those money will be coming ....


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Switzerland gonna have referendum in June on guaranteed income...Interesting what will be outcome..
In CAD$ , every adult gets just above 40K and every child 10K...
SO couple gonna get 80K, just move to some of Eastern European country , like former Yugoslavia and you can retire at 18 y.o. 
for example this guaranteed income is 6 times more than average salary in Macedonia 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-national-wage-of-1700-a-month-a6843666.html


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Funny that the government/central bank subsidizes the financial industry with literally billions $ (corporate welfare for those with > 200K incomes), yet conservative types don't ever have a problem with that ... but pay someone in poverty a few thousand dollars and suddenly the conservatives can't shut up


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> but pay someone in poverty a few thousand dollars and suddenly the conservatives can't shut up


 No one prohibits that "someone in poverty " is not capable or too lazy to obtain skills to work in financial industry ... for sure it's much easier to yell "take money from "rich" and give to us"


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

I noticed how gibor cited james4beach's comment selectively to cut out the part about "Funny that the government/central bank subsidizes the financial industry with literally billions $ (corporate welfare for those with > 200K incomes), yet conservative types don't ever have a problem with that ". I guess gibor doesn't have a problem with corporate welfare coming out of taxpayers' money. He just doesn't like poor people getting some of it.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

gibor said:


> No one prohibits that "someone in poverty " is not capable or too lazy to obtain skills to work in financial industry ... for sure it's much easier to yell "take money from "rich" and give to us"


 Yes, though there is a limited supply of those that can be like Government Sachs & cut deals so those living in Ontario subsidise billions of dollars of hydro power to the US. There can only be so many central bankers that tax payers pay interest to. Huge conflict of interest there they want us in debt. If money needs to be borrowed for roads bridges borrow from tax payers interest free not from central bankers when interest needs to be paid to third party that are in bed with government. Everyone take responsibility for themselves might be like heaven. No givers or takers give me traders that respect each other & promote win/win for each side of the trade.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Whether it is a good idea or bad, can be debated, but what cannot be debated is that something like this needs to be done Federally, if at all, not provincially.

If you are getting X amount of dollars for GIS/OAS etc., and Ontario is going to give you 10% more, you are going to see a lot of those people moving to Ontario. If they give no more, then what is the purpose of the program. It really cannot be done effectively on the Provincial level, but I suppose Wynne will try.

"People of Canada, send us your poor and decrepit and we will send you back our rich and productive" Thank you from the Government of Ontario.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

There is a percentage of the population that will welcome the min income as a little basic help and if they dont have to worry about keeping the lights on there are more free to find better employment and work harder to better themselves. 

But there is a percentage of the population that will just sit on their *** all day smoking weed. Basic income isn't going to change them.

But I say we can ask for something from the under employed. We will give you $800 a month, but if you are an addict you attend a weekly program to get that cash. If you are underskilled you either start retraining or put in some volunteer hours somewhere to qualify.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> The reserves are good example how well it will work. All these social programs take away incentives to be productive why bother the leaches will take it away. Each wolf, each fox, each rabbit, each deer etc, except man as of late provides for its own existence or is granted none @ all. Has there has ever been a time in history with so many rights ? Right to school, right to eat, right to free money or what ever as long as someone else pays for it. Who promised everyone all these rights ? Years ago lot of times if someone went on welfare they would pay it back they took pride. Now days I m not sure if anyone ever pays back welfare. Esteem entails that one is capable & worthy of living as well as committed to that which is good & true. Well pay people for nothing I m sure their self esteem will be boosted (not). The political correct thing is it to confuse rights with freedom ? We bring in all these Refugees give them money & provide for them & how many do you think will pay back the money. It should be required. The big bankers with wall street rig the game want to leach of everyone, Got to go finish post latter unless I forget that which I was going to post


The whole point of guaranteed income is that it doesn't get taken away if you are productive. And lonewolf, the whole point of the pilot is to see whether you are right or not. Then we will have evidence rather than just belief.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Whether it is a good idea or bad, can be debated, but what cannot be debated is that something like this needs to be done Federally, if at all, not provincially.
> 
> If you are getting X amount of dollars for GIS/OAS etc., and Ontario is going to give you 10% more, you are going to see a lot of those people moving to Ontario. If they give no more, then what is the purpose of the program. It really cannot be done effectively on the Provincial level, but I suppose Wynne will try.
> 
> "People of Canada, send us your poor and decrepit and we will send you back our rich and productive" Thank you from the Government of Ontario.


I tend to agree that a fully implemented policy should be run by the federal government. However, this is just a pilot. It will provide data to help us assess whether the policy is effective and what the positive and negative impacts are. People claim that it will result in a bunch of people sitting on their asses smoking weed. The evidence we have from the Dauphin, Manitoba experiment is that it did reduce workforce participation, but primarily by students (who focused on school instead) and mothers of young children (who opted spend more time raising their kids). Unfortunately, the Dauphin experiment lost support part way through and some of the data that was collected was never properly tabulated. Running a number of different experiments (small scale) in different areas with different configurations will help to provide evidence on the net impacts of such a policy.

I get being opposed to a full implementation of a guaranteed income, but a small scale experiment should be welcomed. If it provides evidence that it is a bad policy, then the risk of it being implemented is reduced. Critics should be jumping for joy that Ontario is taking this approach and not that of the Swiss (big bang implementation of the policy without testing).


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

It is just so inspiring to read so many empathetic, positive comments. I get so bummed out hearing right-wing conservatives rant about government stealing their hard earned money and giving it to the undeserving. Most seem to have no concept that not everyone is lucky enough to get the breaks in life. I have been successful and have worked hard for what I have but I also know that a big, big portion of my success is being in the right place at the right time, or taking a risk that paid off. I know of others who have worked just as hard or harder but had their employer's company go belly-up, or took a risk and lost, or they got a serious illness or whatever and because of that they and their families lose out. 

It is true that what we have done with Aboriginal people in terms of destroying their culture and making them dependent is terrible and I hope we correct that as it is Canada's great shame. But something has to be done for all the underprivileged people as the balance of wealth has gone badly out of whack.

This is not just a bleeding heart liberal's point of view but even the Economist magazine (hardly left wing) publishes many articles on the desperate need to correct this situation.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Yes, but how will a pilot project work? No one is going to move to a new city, just for a pilot project, but they will move when the money is real and irrevocable. Therefore I doubt a pilot project will uncover this drag to the economy.

It is this issue that the pilot project needs to address but I doubt it will be able to.

We don't really need a pilot project for this. It is economics 101, that if you give more money to people who are not working, you will get more people who are not working. Just lower the GIS age to 60 and see how many more people decide to retire, all of a sudden. It would be hundreds of thousands. Does Premier Wynne not know that Ontario is currently in a fiscal deficit. I know it is easy to spend other peoples money on other people but we have run out of other peoples money. Now we need other people to loan other people money so she can give it to other people. The more other people who get it, the less other people available to service the debt and pay it back. What an idiot.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I certainly think this is the way of the future as far as effective distribution of technologically driven wealth and good governance goes. I am skeptical that we are at that advanced stage of automation and productivity yet though, and am even more skeptical that this will be correctly implemented in a responsible, revenue neutral way, and that it isn't just yet another tax grab by yet another left-wing government.

To be effective, the basic income would need to accompany the dismantling of most welfare/low-income/tax-credit provisions by the government. It would mean smaller government with less administration and less control, a decidedly good thing, and a decidedly non left-wing course of action to take. Hence my increased skepticism.

There would have to be no clawback, or at least it would have to be on a very slow scale, otherwise there would be no incentive to work at all. If the benefit were 8k, and the clawback occurred over something low like the 45-90k income range, you'd get a crap load of people dropping out of the workforce or retiring early. It would need to be in the upper tax brackets only, clawed-back over a range between something like 150-300k.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Yes, but how will a pilot project work? No one is going to move to a new city, just for a pilot project, but they will move when the money is real and irrevocable. Therefore I doubt a pilot project will uncover this drag to the economy.
> 
> It is this issue that the pilot project needs to address but I doubt it will be able to.


Perhaps. I suspect any program will be pretty meagre, and I find it hard to believe people will move cross country for a few thousand dollars per year. Do people currently shop around different welfare rates across the country?

If you are truly concerned about mass migration driven by this policy, you could add a residency restriction on eligibility (must have been resident in Ontario for 5 years). Similar to GIS eligibility.



> We don't really need a pilot project for this. It is economics 101, that if you give more money to people who are not working, you will get more people who are not working. Just lower the GIS age to 60 and see how many more people decide to retire, all of a sudden. It would be hundreds of thousands. Does Premier Wynne not know that Ontario is currently in a fiscal deficit. I know it is easy to spend other peoples money on other people but we have run out of other peoples money. Now we need other people to loan other people money so she can give it to other people. The more other people who get it, the less other people available to service the debt and pay it back. What an idiot.


I think many people disagree with you that a study is necessary. See this thread. People do not agree on what the impacts of the policy will be. Let's replace belief with evidence.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

peterk said:


> I certainly think this is the way of the future as far as effective distribution of technologically driven wealth and good governance goes. I am skeptical that we are at that advanced stage of automation and productivity yet though, and am even more skeptical that this will be correctly implemented in a responsible, revenue neutral way, and that it isn't just yet another tax grab by yet another left-wing government.
> 
> To be effective, the basic income would need to accompany the dismantling of most welfare/low-income/tax-credit provisions by the government. It would mean smaller government with less administration and less control, a decidedly good thing, and a decidedly non left-wing course of action to take. Hence my increased skepticism.
> 
> There would have to be no clawback, or at least it would have to be on a very slow scale, otherwise there would be no incentive to work at all. If the benefit were 8k, and the clawback occurred over something low like the 45-90k income range, you'd get a crap load of people dropping out of the workforce or retiring early. It would need to be in the upper tax brackets only, clawed-back over a range between something like 150-300k.


That would never work from a revenue perspective.

You need a modest benefit, and an immediate clawback in the 30-50% range from the first dollar earned. Some basic math: if you have an $8k benefit and a 33% clawback rate, people earning market incomes of $24k would pay effectively zero tax. Anyone with a market income less than this is receiving a net benefit, which would have to be paid for by people earning a market income of more than $24k. People still have a strong incentive to work, because when you have $20k to live on, an extra $1000 in earnings makes a big difference in your standard of living, even if you only keep 2/3rds of it.


People seem to have this bizarre idea that the only reason they work for a living themselves, earning say $50k - $100k per year, is because the government is not giving them $8k a year to live on. If they only had $8k a year from the government, they would quite their well-paid jobs, get rid of their car and house, and live in a trailer eating kraft dinner, all so they could avoid working. Seems like a massive failure in imagination or empathy.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> We don't really need a pilot project for this. It is economics 101, that if you give more money to people who are not working, you will get more people who are not working. Just lower the GIS age to 60 and see how many more people decide to retire, all of a sudden. It would be hundreds of thousands.





> . If the benefit were 8k, and the clawback occurred over something low like the 45-90k income range, you'd get a crap load of people dropping out of the workforce or retiring early. It would need to be in the upper tax brackets only, clawed-back over a range between something like 150-300k.


There are already tons of blogs like "Retire at 45", 40, 35.... looks like soon we'll see blogs "retire after high-school" .
imo , The lower will be clawback , more people will retire earlier. If " the clawback occurred over something low like the 45-90k income range", than full clawback would be maybe around 150K ...
Interesting if Swiss have clawback?!
I think that introducing it in one province is stupid idea, it should be Federal.
Unclear what will be eligibility... if people from other province will move to ON, would they get it? If ON resident moves out of province or lives in ON 6 months/year , would they get it?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Perhaps. I suspect any program will be pretty meagre, and I find it hard to believe people will move cross country for a few thousand dollars per year. Do people currently shop around different welfare rates across the country?


In Ottawa, one just needs to get an apartment across the bridge. I am sure there are quite a few other communities where that is the case. In either case, if the only criteria is that you live there, then over the years, YES, people will migrate for a few thousand dollars a year. That actually works out to be quite a bit of booze.

Listen, I have no problem with a study. They can knock themselves out. What my issue concerns is that I am not sure they will get all the data they want. Will a poor person be a little better off if you gave them $2,000 more every year. I don't think I need a study for that.

Will it keep them from getting a job. It will not for some, it will for most. Sure some actual statistics are nice but we have studied human behavior for years. We already know how this works. When you give money to the poor, you get more poor. I did not make that rule, economics did. Will there be some exceptions. Of course. Are their people where giving a little more money would produce nothing but benefit and create no drawback. Of course. Are their many more people, where giving them more money will create little benefit and lots of drawbacks. That will be the majority.

Anyways, we can't afford it. So we need to quit window shopping.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> If they only had $8k a year from the government, they would quite their well-paid jobs, get rid of their car and house, and live in a trailer eating kraft dinner


 People who works in MCD or similar can quit , get 8K and do some side jobs w/o reporting any income.
Families will retire much earlier, if we get additional 16K (and in reality it would be 24K, as our daughter will also get 8K at 18 b-day , so her tuitions will be partially covered) , it's very likely that we gonna retire several years earlier than planned. 



> must have been resident in Ontario for 5 years


 so new immigrants and Liberals beloved Syrian refugees get nothing for 5 years?!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Will it keep them from getting a job. It will not for some, it will for most. Sure some actual statistics are nice but we have studied human behavior for years. We already know how this works. When you give money to the poor, you get more poor. I did not make that rule, economics did. Will there be some exceptions. Of course. Are their people where giving a little more money would produce nothing but benefit and create no drawback. Of course. Are their many more people, where giving them more money will create little benefit and lots of drawbacks. That will be the majority.
> 
> Anyways, we can't afford it. So we need to quit window shopping.


You make lots of assertions there. I think they are not well supported by evidence. You have your belief, I have mine. Let's get some evidence and find out how things really work.

You're being quite unscientific. Science doesn't just produce models and declare that they should work, so there is no need to test them. Science is about creating models, and testing to see if they can be proven to be incorrect. If they stand up to all attempts to prove them incorrect, the model is probably correct. You can't skip the evidence gathering step. It is essential.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

gibor said:


> People who works in MCD or similar can quit , get 8K and do some side jobs w/o reporting any income.
> Families will retire much earlier, if we get additional 16K (and in reality it would be 24K, as our daughter will also get 8K at 18 b-day , so her tuitions will be partially covered) , it's very likely that we gonna retire several years earlier than planned.


Why would they quit? If they earn $20k an McDonalds, they could choose to continue to work and live on about $22k per year after tax, or quit and live on $8k per year. I don't know if you have ever been poor, but living on $8k per year is not enjoyable, especially when compared to $22k.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> I don't know if you have ever been poor


 As an engineer in USSR, my salary was around $700 per year 
I didn't say to live on 8K, I said to live on 8K and do some part-time non-reported job, like babysitting...
and what about ", it's very likely that we gonna retire several years earlier than planned. "?! At retirement , to live comfortable life, we need 70-80K/year, add additional 16K (or 24K - as big part of RESP money we can use, because our daughter also gonna get 8K), and we can retire much earlier and not to pay those crazy taxes


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

gibor said:


> As an engineer in USSR, my salary was around $700 per year
> I didn't say to live on 8K, I said to live on 8K and do some part-time non-reported job, like babysitting...
> and what about ", it's very likely that we gonna retire several years earlier than planned. "?! At retirement , to live comfortable life, we need 70-80K/year, add additional 16K (or 24K - as big part of RESP money we can use, because our daughter also gonna get 8K), and we can retire much earlier and not to pay those crazy taxes


But if you are living on 70-80k per year, you likely have enough other income (investment income) that the guaranteed annual income will have been fully clawed back.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

andrewf said:


> But if you are living on 70-80k per year, you likely have enough other income (investment income) that the guaranteed annual income will have been fully clawed back.


TFSA investment income is non-clawback ... On our cash portion, only interest gonna count as income and if we have 500K in CASH, we can withdraw annually 25K for 20 years... and you're in 70's and don't have any debt, you will need much less money... so practically our budget will consist of Guarantee amount (16K or so), TFSA dividends, portion of Cash and minimum RRIF payments...

Also we won't be scary to spend all our money, as in the really the worst case we still guaranteed 16K or so, for couple in 70's it's not extremely bad...

Also, 70-80K it would be extremely comfortable  , just checked our spending spreadsheet ... in 2015 , with 2 kids, 3 weeks travel to France and 2 Caribbean vacations (all in prime time ) , we spend 88K and this is includeing 2 cars (that we won't need in retirement, around 4K GO transit spendings etc)


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

andrewf said:


> You make lots of assertions there. I think they are not well supported by evidence.


Show me the evidence then.

Anyway, run the pilot. At the end of the day, has anyone decided who gets to pay for all this. Right now the government is putting a nice tidy sum on everyone's credit cards by way of a fiscal deficit. Do we just put another $1,000 each year on every citizen's back, that actually does produce something in this province. We had about a 19 page discussion here when they said they were just going to give free tuition to some citizens, again from the pockets of others. How will those middle class families feel when they start giving the equivalent, each and every year, to a vastly larger group... that will be ever increasing in size (trust me on this one. For example, have you ever seen a charity ever need to reduce what it supplies to the poor. No, the demand for it always increases).

The next problem is the people who are almost eligible for the handout, but are not. The next income level. They get hurt by the inflationary impact of all this new money competing on price for the same rents and food and consumables. This then decreases their standard of living, as it does everyone's, but they are the ones hurt the most.

Again, all this is economics and human psychology and it has been studied for centuries. But, lets do another one.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

There is some of the best evidence we have. Hence why another study is a good idea. 

The rest of your post is relevant for when we are talking about implementing the policy at a large scale. That's not what anyone is talking about right now. Let's do the study and understand the impacts, and how to structure the program to maximize benefits and minimize costs.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

You see that is exactly what I am worried about. A bad study. One that doesn't look close enough at the true cost of a socialist program. Make it permanent and give it 20 years and lets look at the results.

That said, we already know enough about human behavior to know that giving people money for not working reduces their incentive to work. Remember, the people that this money is geared to do not have careers. They have unrewarding jobs that are almost universally hated by the workers who are needed to do them. It doesn't take much to get them to quit. Let's not give it to them.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> You see that is exactly what I am worried about. A bad study


 Only idiots like NDP and Justin's papa could've do "pilot"in village with population size , like couple of Toronto's condo, where there is no qualifying jobs , no immigrants, no Universities and so on. 

The program should be Federal and should be put on referendum like in Switzerland ... Taxpayers who pays high salaries to those politicians should decide... not old b Wynne and Justin


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> And I'm not sure if anyone ever did!


I think that was called "Workfare" under the Mike Harris conservative Ontario gov't, Karen. Back then, they thought it was a good idea of indirectly forcing welfare recipients to contribute some of their labour for community projects. 

In the end it backfired,as not all that collect gov't assistance have the desire or inclination to repay anything.

S


> tudies on workfare are unclear about the concept’s effectiveness.
> Workfare for the general unemployed population was introduced to Ontario by then-premier Mike Harris in the Ontario Works Act of 1997. Harris’s program was introduced after the federal government’s Canadian Health and Social Transfer came into effect, which put welfare programs into the hands of provinces.





> Harris’s program still exists (though it has been modified over the years) under the moniker Ontario Works.
> 
> A report from the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario, published in 2012, shows that welfare case loads fell dramatically between 1993 and 2004. During part of that time, workfare was in place in Ontario.
> 
> Although welfare caseloads were reduced, _little light has been shed on the question of whether or not those who went off welfare moved into sustained gainful employment_.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Only idiots like NDP and Justin's papa could've do "pilot"in village with population size , like couple of Toronto's condo, where there is no qualifying jobs , no immigrants, no Universities and so on.
> 
> The program should be Federal and should be put on referendum like in Switzerland ... Taxpayers who pays high salaries to those politicians should decide... not old b Wynne and Justin


The Federal gov't has it's hands full already with the aboriginal communities it supports with generous funding by taxpayers. The reservations and various bands are autonomous and not always accountable for the money they receive. The band councils have the authority to spend federal funds on housing, skills training/education, and even operating profitable small business from reservation resources, (oxymoron intended), but in most cases the money (you can call it welfare), is squandered without a trace were it went. Why is this?

Some us may remember the INM (idle no more) movement a few years back, Chief Teresa Spence and her "uh.."hunger strike" here in Ottawa, to draw political attention to the fact,that her band was in dire straits with no clean drinking
water or adequate housing. She had her Cadillac Escalade SUV brought to her tent in Ottawa. 

Chief Spence has several lucrative investments including shares in a diamond mine,but the new housing that several million of Federal funds wereearmarked for..didn't get built..and no trace of where it went on the band council's financial books either.


----------

