Sample Economics Paper on Canada’s Economy

A high number of people in Canada are striving to keep pace with the increasing cost of living as they are experiencing unstable employment with minimal job security and gains. The present level of joblessness in Ontario is approximately 6%, which is just slightly less than the countrywide average. Moreover, Ontario province boasts of the highest population all over Canada as it has almost twelve million citizens (Petroff & Petroff, 2017). To curb the rate of poverty in Canada, a pilot study has been proposed as to whether a basic income may bridge the gap and offer the underprivileged residents the security and chance they require to achieve their potential. Ontario province in Canada will turn out to be the latest region where assessments will be undertaken concerning a guaranteed income plan for low-income citizens.

The provincial administration in Ontario province has recently implemented a pilot study which will offer 4,000 residents a sure income irrespective of their state of employment. The notion behind an assured or fundamental income is increasingly being adopted in many nations across the world (Petroff & Petroff, 2017). The people who back the idea affirm that systems should be set up to ensure that workers enjoy enhanced security, particularly with the decline in the demand for human labor that may be attributed to technological advancements. The supporters of the approach also state that it will ascertain that the unemployed residents take up most odd jobs devoid of losing much of their gains.

The residents of Ontario province in Canada who have been selected to take part in the program will be offered about 17,000 Canadian dollars (approximately $ 12,600) every year. To qualify for the program, some of the inclusion criteria are that the applicants will have to be from 18 to 64 years of age and residing on a low income (Petroff & Petroff, 2017). The position of the government officials is that they want to distinguish whether the plan can offer adequate support to susceptible residents, boost medical and education standards for the residents who receive low incomes, and assist in ensuring that every person is sufficiently equipped to make significant contributions toward the economic development of Ontario.

It has been projected that researchers will keep an eye on participants in the program on criteria linked to mental health, housing, food, employment, and level of education. Before carrying out the program, invitation letters will be sent to likely partakers in the course of a few weeks. The main goal behind the execution of the program in Ontario is to support participants make their earnings over and above ensuring that they have an income on which they can fall back in case they go through difficult times or desire to pursue further learning. The participants in the program will obtain reduced government provisions once they can earn much on their own (Smith-Carrier & Lawlor, 2017).

Finland designed a similar program as Ontario a few months before. The government of Finland endeavored to offer approximately 2,000 residents a guaranteed income with finances that would continually be received regardless of whether the selected participants are employed or not. On this note, Kenya and Netherlands are mulling over pilot projects that will provide assured income (Petroff & Petroff, 2017). The experiment in Ontario has been implemented approximately four decades after a comparable model was employed in Manitoba province of the same country, Canada. The program in Manitoba resulted in health development but no significant decrease in the workforce contribution level.

 

 

 

References

Petroff, A., & Petroff, A. (2017, April 24). Ontario launches guaranteed income program for 4,000 residents. CNN. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/24/pf/canada-ontario-money-basic-income-program/index.html

Smith-Carrier, T., & Lawlor, A. (2017). Realising our (neoliberal) potential? A critical discourse analysis of the poverty reduction strategy in Ontario, Canada. Critical Social Policy, 37(1), 105-127.