Proposed Long-Term UBI Pilot in Kitimat

The concepts of Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) are not new and around the world there have been various pilots that tried to partially emulate how it works. There are bills in parliament like S-233 and C-233 right now going through review.

Providing every person with a certain useful amount of income is a costly endeavor, especially given the cost of even rental housing nowadays across Canada.

Instead of a Canada-wide rollout (that could be costly and complicated to phase out if it turned out badly), I proposed to various MPs a small scale but "true" and in some ways rather ruthless test. The cost would be manageable and data collected over 10 years would be invaluable in projecting how the Canadian demographic might react to UBI or GBI.

The concept or GBI/UBI tacitly includes removing social supports, trusting the individual to be responsible with their finances. This is practical: GBI/UBI is meant to replace those supports so maintaining them would be redundant waste when funding could instead be directed toward actually actualizing a GBI/UBI program. Also, without this stipulation, everyone could be as irresponsible as they wanted, counting on infinite bailouts from the government.

However a government is responsible for everyone citizen, not just the responsible and law-abiding ones. But the fact is, no matter how promising one's circumstances, some people do end up in poverty: Lottery winners who still end bankrupt due to how they chose to spend their winnings; or alcoholics who destroyed their careers and lives. No matter how few these cases, they still have to be accounted for, at least until their next cash infusion.

The pilot I proposed does not remove MSP/healthcare (the cost of which could be too much for any Basic Income recipient depending on their health needs without subsidy), and also does not dismantle the social support structures in the rest of Canada unlike a full Canada-wide program rollout. So in the worst case there are still two safety nets: healthcare, and going out of the pilot area to avail themselves of social services.

Subject: Proposed Long-Term UBI Pilot in Kitimat – Complement to Federal GLBI Efforts

To:
Karina.Gould@parl.gc.ca
Leah.Gazan@parl.gc.ca
Julie.Dzerowicz@parl.gc.ca
patek@sen.parl.gc.ca

---

Dear Members of Parliament and Senator Pate,

I’m writing to propose a detailed, data-supported pilot project for Universal Basic Income in Kitimat, British Columbia. This small-scale initiative could complement, inform, and even de-risk wider federal GLBI ambitions by offering something Canada — and the world — has not yet seen: a 10+ year UBI experiment that replaces most means-tested social services, retains public healthcare, and is designed for observability, adaptability, and fiscal transparency.

As supporters of basic income in various forms, each of you has helped keep this conversation alive in Parliament and civil society. I believe this Kitimat pilot aligns with your goals, while offering new ways to test feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and societal impact in a controlled, accountable setting.

---

Why Kitimat?

• Demographically unique: A mix of industrial and Indigenous populations, with a substantial portion experiencing economic vulnerability.

• Not wholly rural nor urban: Kitimat offers a midpoint between smaller communities and larger centers, providing meaningful data for extrapolation.

• Defined community with manageable scale: ~7,500 eligible adult residents makes it a cost-contained but still robust testbed.

• Clear pilot boundaries: Residency requirement (minimum 4 years) ensures fairness and prevents migration-driven eligibility.

---

Why This Pilot Offers Distinct Value

• A “clean” UBI pilot: Most income-based social assistance (excluding healthcare) is removed, allowing us to directly compare systems without duplicative supports.

• Easier to phase out or expand: Unlike national GLBI rollouts, this pilot is structured to scale up or shut down without administrative upheaval.

• Hard data over ideology: If UBI delivers better outcomes and cost-efficiencies, the pilot will show it. If not, that’s valuable insight too — at a fraction of national cost.

• Tax recovery and downstream savings modeled in: The financial design considers income tax recovery and potential reductions in emergency healthcare, criminal justice use, and social instability.

---

Political Collaboration Across Parties

We’ve also reached out to:

• Premier David Eby (as provincial partnership is essential),

• Conservative MP Ellis Ross (representing the riding),

• And Kitimat’s municipal leadership, who have strong local ties and practical governance experience.

We hope this encourages cross-partisan engagement and makes this pilot more politically viable than large, ideologically charged proposals.

---

I’m not an expert or policymaker myself — just someone concerned that UBI ideas will be dismissed before they’re ever properly tested. That’s why I worked with ChatGPT (OpenAI) to generate the attached technical model, which includes a detailed cost and offset appendix, drawing from public data and assumptions that can be revised, challenged, or improved as needed.

If this sparks interest, I’m happy to step back entirely and allow your offices to coordinate directly with experts or departments for refinement. I only ask that the idea be considered on its merits — as a rare opportunity for Canada to lead with evidence.

Thank you for your time, for your legislative leadership on this issue, and for considering how this small town pilot might support your big national goals.

Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Postal Code if you like – optional]

---

Appendix: Cost & Offset Model – Kitimat UBI Pilot

Scope & Assumptions:

• Location: Kitimat, British Columbia

• Eligible recipients: ~7,500 adults (approx. post-residency filter)

• Monthly basic income: $2,200 per adult

• Annual gross payout: ~$198 million

---

Offsets Considered

1. Elimination of Means-Tested Assistance Programs

   • Replaces income/disability assistance, housing supplements, etc.

   • Savings: $70–80 million

   • Note: Government healthcare coverage is retained.

2. Tax Recovery

   • Some recipients will work and pay taxes on combined income.

   • Estimated recovery: $20–30 million

   • Even with RRSP/TFSA strategies, tax revenue will increase modestly.

3. Emergency Services & Health Savings

   • Improvements in housing, food security, and mental health reduce public costs.

   • Estimate: $5–10 million in indirect savings

---

Estimated Net Cost:

$80–100 million annually
A manageable cost for a federal-provincial pilot — and a valuable data source for the future of GLBI in Canada.

---