Even though they promised they would continue the Basic Income pilot, this government cancelled it, despite it being only a drop in the bucket in terms of cost (less than 0.1% of the total budget). Whatever this government thinks of Basic Income, this was a study worth finishing. Peterborough This Week has a good write-up of the rally against the cancellation (https://www.mykawartha.com/news-story/8805061-lindsay-comes-out-in-force-to-protest-cancellation-of-basic-income-program/?s=n1) in Lindsay yesterday.
It's a shame and it's downright mean-spirited to do this to people who signed on in good faith with the government that they'd have this income for three years.
If I understood some of what you were saying last night about wanting to give expression to things that most other candidates weren't, I wonder if that might also include how that expression is given? I invite you to offer what is so important to you in this situation that has you characterizing the PC's as 'mean-spirited' so the explicit emphasis is on what you stand for, what you value and also avoids the more common labelling or name-calling style of communication. That for me would be giving expression differently than most other political candidates.
your thoughts?
This is an entirely different arena. And I disagree with the characterization of what I just said. I didn't just call it mean-spirited, I gave two reasons as to why it was: (1) the recipients signed contacts with the government in good faith, and (2) it costs next to nothing to finish it. And honestly, it's the history of the PCs in Ontario, I remember the Harris years very well. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. I'd think the values I hold from that are fairly obvious - keep your promises, a deal is a deal and it doesn't save the government much money to quit it prematurely.