The News Rundown

What happens when you give 50 homeless people $7,500 each? A B.C. study found out

A UBC study done on how homeless people would spend a windfall of cash has been making headlines, especially for how the study set its parameters, and what it wanted to accomplish.
University of British Columbia researcher and associate professor of psychology Jiaying Zhao stated the intent of the study as such: "The goal is to do something about the homelessness crisis here in Canada, and specifically Vancouver because the current approaches are failing. I think this study provides very strong evidence in favour of a basic-income policy."
50 homeless people were given $7,500 each to spend, and the study tracked how each person spent the money. Instead of blowing the windfall on "temptation goods", such as alcohol, drugs or cigarettes, they spent it on rent, clothing and food, Zhao found.
The handout even generated a net saving of almost $800 per recipient, taking into account the costs that would have been involved in providing shelter accommodation.
Researchers tracked the spending of the recipients for a year after they received the cash. They also followed a control group of 65 homeless people who did not get the handout.
The study, recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found recipients spent 99 fewer days homeless, and spent 55 more days in stable housing. They also retained $1,160 more savings.
Zhao said in an interview Wednesday that the researchers "found a range of surprising positive benefits of a cash transfer."
Spending on "temptation goods" was no different between the recipients and the control group. However, the study did not include people with severe substance or alcohol use or mental health symptoms. Other criteria required participants to have been homeless for less than two years.
Participants were recruited from 22 homeless shelters across the B.C. Lower Mainland. The study said that by reducing time in shelters, the cash transfer was "cost-effective."
It said the societal cost of a shelter stay in Vancouver was about $93 per night, and the fewer nights in shelters resulted in "societal cost savings" of $8,277 per recipient.
The researchers also conducted an online survey of about 1,100 U.S. residents to understand public perceptions of homeless people's spending.
Vancouverites were not recruited because researchers were seeking a "representative voice" in North America, and Zhao said "people in Vancouver are more progressive than an average person in North America."
Survey respondents predicted that recipients of an unconditional $7,500 cash transfer would spend 81 per cent more on goods like alcohol, drugs and tobacco if they were homeless than if they were housed.
Zhao said most also predicted homeless people would spend $300 on such goods a month, while the study found those individuals only spent about $100 per month on such goods.
"That's an unfortunate, pervasive belief held by many people, so we wanted to actually examine or look at this bias," she said.
Zhao said her team found public perception can be challenged through effective messaging and policy changes.
"I'm working with politicians and policymakers in Canada on bills like this," she said, referring to Bill S-233 that is currently before the Senate and aims to create a national framework for a guaranteed basic income to cover essential living expenses for people in Canada over age 17.
She said researchers are now replicating the study with a larger sample of people, and expanding it to other cities in Canada and the U.S.
Now after reading or hearing all of this, the study has raised some eyebrows about the methods taken by the study to arrive at its conclusion. The articles about the story are really based on the press release that UBC put out to trumpet the study, which you can read online, and demonstrates meagre attention to the study itself, which you can and perhaps should read elsewhere online.
The study seems almost like a deliberate parody of the contemporary social sciences: its authors had a conclusion to draw, and despite grotesque and hilarious failings in the research, that press release was going out the door no matter what.
The study is easy enough to understand. The authors planned to go to Vancouver homeless shelters, select a few clients, give some of them an unconditional cash payment of $7,500, and see how it affected them according to a huge array of measures, including cognitive functioning, “food security,” self-reported well-being and substance use.
It’s the most natural experiment in the world, really. Give someone in distress a big cheque for a significant if not life-altering amount. Do they pull themselves out of crisis or ruin themselves?
Unfortunately, putting a thumb on the scale was almost the first thing the researchers did. 732 possible participants in the study were screened. UBC didn’t want their sample to include the long-term homeless, so to be eligible, participants had to have been homeless for less than two years. Also, they rejected severe drug and alcohol abusers and the mentally ill.
Why reject the most problematic, messed-up and socially costly victims of homelessness from a study of homelessness? “These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer.” Or, more likely they didn't want the outcome to be different from what they wanted it to be.
Note that the researchers didn’t even consider including the tent-dwelling, park-occupying homeless: merely by working with shelters, and with the people who prefer to sleep indoors despite some filth and danger, they were giving themselves an enormous implicit advantage.
The study goes on to describe how 229 people were chosen from the screening sample to provide the experimental group for the study. Alas, of the 229 who “passed all criteria,” half (114) of them disappeared from view and didn’t complete the series of questionnaires and tests they had supposedly undertaken. Bad news, one might think, for a scientific study literally purporting to prove that stereotypes of the homeless as impulsive and untrustworthy are mistaken. That left 50 participants who took the cash and 65 who didn’t.
So while the study set out with positive minded goals, skewing the science to achieve your desired outcome is not how studies should be done, especially ones costing as much as this one has. It's amazing that it received as much traction as it has, and only Colby Cosh of the National Post has written anything criticizing its methods.
Supplementals:

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault is making headlines again this time criticizing Suncor for not doing enough to regulate their emissions.
Guilbeault criticized Suncor CEO Rich Kruger in which he says that Suncor has prioritized short term profits over the environment.
He also went as far to say that this will call for a new set of regulations to cap emissions from oil and gas producers.
The interesting part about all of this is that Suncor remains part of the Pathways Alliance, a group of Canadian oil and gas companies committed to net zero by 2050.
The information provided in the article paints a daring picture where oil and gas contributes to 28% of Canada’s emissions and the oil sands accounts for 13% of Canada’s emissions.
The article also says that Suncor’s emissions are 50% higher than 2011.
Now this would be all fine and dandy if these critiques were levelled while on a visit to Alberta or in an election campaign but these comments came from Guilbeault while he was in China.
Yes, China.
China, a country still driven by coal fired plants and boasting the largest annual CO2 emissions per country, somehow has achieved the moral high ground in this story when Canada in total is responsible for a mere 1.5% of total global greenhouse gas emissions.
Guilbeault is in China to have diplomatic meetings with a group that advises the Chinese Communist Party on climate change.
Prior to the meeting he said, "We will confront them when we have to confront them… But we will also cooperate on issues like climate change and nature."
What this has apparently translated to is cooperating on making Canada look like the greenhouse gas pariah broadcasted from the Chinese mainland.
Just like the former endeavours to get a free-trade deal with China, the Liberals see no solution to tackling climate change without China which apparently means running over Canada’s main economic driver in front of state run media.
And Guilbeault and the Liberals are right, there is no solution to global warming without China, it’s just that China will only do what they see as economically beneficial to them.
As such, the line should be, China needs to lower emissions first and then we will consider reductions in-kind.
The hypocrisy behind this story continues, you’d think it would end here but it doesn’t.
Deputy Green Party leader Jonathan Pedneault pointed out that China buys 50% of the coal exported by Canada and we benefit from China’s pollution and that it’s cynical for Guilbeault to be talking about the environment from China.
A smart government would tariff all coal exported to China and China alone. It would make Canada richer and it would be on par with the federal government’s goal of expanding carbon tax mandates.
But they won’t do that. Instead it’s the people of Canada that are left to pay the carbon tax.
This story has been framed as one where Guilbeault’s comments were given to the media in a traditional scrum, very few pieces mention the comments took place in China.
This is unacceptable and has drawn the strongest criticism from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.
She said, “[Guilbeault’s] involvement in the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development has him turning a blind eye to China’s environmental record while they add the equivalent of two new coal-fired electricity plants each week. Conversely, Albertans have cut emissions more than any other province this past decade, spending billions of dollars transitioning almost all electricity generation from coal to natural gas.”
She continued, “Under no scenario will the Government of Alberta permit the implementation of the proposed federal electricity regulations or contemplated oil and gas emissions cap.“
This again outlines the stark policies that the federal government is willing to support. And we know they are because it was only about a month ago that the grand cabinet shuffle took place and Guilbuealt was one of 6 ministers to not be moved which should be taken as a sign that Trudeau has the utmost confidence in his minister.
A minister that will tarnish Canada and Alberta on the world stage but also a world stage provided by the Chinese Communist Party.
Supplementals:

Deputy Prime Minister fined $273 for speeding in rental car

Chrystia Freeland has made a lot of noise in the time she's been Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister about the personal choices that she has made to help cut her family's costs, like cancelling Disney Plus, or not owning her own car. Most of the time she comes off as incredibly insincere and pandering, but something she did in late August raised some eyebrows.
Not only does it turn out that Freeland does drive, but she drives fast. So fast, in fact, that police in Alberta last week issued her a speeding ticket.
Freeland's press secretary Katherine Cuplinskas said: “The Deputy Prime Minister was pulled over for driving 132 km/h while travelling between Grande Prairie and Peace River.”
The Deputy PM’s office confirmed the charge to the Toronto Sun after news of the interaction broke on the Counter Signal website. In that story, editor Keean Bexte reported that she was driving 42 kilometres over the speed limit. Freeland’s office has so far not answered what the speed limit was in the area of the highway where she was driving.
While Freeland’s office has yet to comment on questions about what the limit was when she was pulled over by Alberta police, they did reveal the amount of the fine.
According to Cuplinskas, “She received a ticket for $273, and paid in full.”
According to Alberta highway traffic laws, a person receiving a $273 fine is also hit with four demerit points. Freeland’s office did not comment on questions about driving demerit points.
While this is an embarrassing situation for Freeland, it is especially curious since Freeland was recently quoted mocking even the notion of owning a car. When pressed about the rising cost of filling up a car with gas, Freeland was flippant.
“I right now am an MP for downtown Toronto,” Freeland said. “A fact that still shocks my dad is, I don’t actually own a car … I’m like, I don’t know, 300 metres from the nearest subway. I walk. I take the subway. I make my kids walk and ride their bikes and take the subway. It’s actually healthier for our family. I can live that way.”
Soon after, there were media-sourced reports of chauffeured drivers in Toronto being paid from her office budget and pictures of her getting in and out of cars while on government visits. Now she’s caught speeding in Alberta.
Last month, Freeland faced criticism from Conservatives over her comments about not owning a car, in the context of the rising cost of gas and carbon pricing, without mentioning her access to a car and driver as a federal minister.
"A fact that still shocks my dad is that I don't actually own a car. I can live that way, but I grew up in a small town in northern Alberta, and I got my driver's license the day I turned 16," Freeland said in late July.
Once again, this small story highlights the hypocrisy and double standards that the Liberals enact - preaching morality, while doing another thing altogether.
Supplementals:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/i-won-t-do-it-again-chrystia-freeland-on-alberta-speeding-ticket-1.6531746

Firing Line

High-level judges may have paid to meet Trudeau before their appointments

Special to the National Post this week is an article detailing an 8 month investigation into the politicization of our judicial system.
The article reveals that at least six current superior court justices may have paid to meet with the prime minister or the deputy prime minister at Liberal Party fundraisers shortly before being appointed.
This follows an earlier investigation that found that over three times as many Liberal donors than Conservative donors have been appointed since 2016.
The Investigative Journalism Foundation knows this because all federal fundraisers with tickets over $200, featuring a party leader, cabinet minister, or leadership contestant must be reported to Elections Canada.
A Robert Armstrong and Michel Bourque, both of Calgary, attended several fundraisers with high-level cabinet members — sometimes together — with their last attendance at events just a couple months before judges with similar names were appointed to Alberta’s Court of King’s Bench.
Bourque attended five Liberal Party fundraisers, one featured the Prime Minister and another two featured Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland.
Armstrong, Bourque, and a man named Kevin Feth (also another appointed Alberta judge) are Laurier Club members, an exclusive club for top donors of the Liberal party.
Jana Steele from Toronto was appointed to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario in May 2020. A Jana Steele from the Toronto area attended two Liberal fundraisers in 2018 and 2019.
The Investigative Journalism Foundation and National Post reached out to these judges in question but either did not respond or did not confirm that requests for comment were received.
When asked in June, the PMO said that they use a merit based process and employed the usual distractions and diversions when the government has been under fire.
It’s at this point that the story takes an interesting turn. Normally the news outlet would consult with a political scientist, and they did, but one from Boise State University in Idaho.
They talked to Lori Hausegger who is the director of the Canadian studies program at Boise State, who has a Master’s Degree from the University of Calgary.
Now normally an outlet like the National Post would go talk to a higher profile political scientist, one known to the Canadian public and in Canada - why they didn’t is an interesting question.
Nonetheless, Ms. Hausegger believes that the government either went with someone highly recommended who they knew a little more or went with someone who was just recommended but was at the fundraiser.
The story also caught the eyes of Democracy Watch, a non-partisan organization that advocates for government accountability.
They said the obvious, this could “undermine public confidence in the independence and impartiality of judges across the country.”
Democracy Watch brought a court case against the federal government in 2022 alleging that the “too-political” judicial appointments process violates the Charter and unwritten principles of fundamental justice.
The story ends here. There has been no further commentary in Canada by the media or analysts.
We know judges appointed to high courts were at fundraisers. We don’t know what the connection is.
What we do know is that the sense of impartiality in our justice system at the highest level is diminishing and this is only the beginning of the story.

Quote of the Week

“[Guilbeault’s] involvement in the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development has him turning a blind eye to China’s environmental record while they add the equivalent of two new coal-fired electricity plants each week. Conversely, Albertans have cut emissions more than any other province this past decade, spending billions of dollars transitioning almost all electricity generation from coal to natural gas.” - Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on the federal government’s emission plans.

Word of the Week

Excessive - more than is necessary, normal, or desirable

How to Find Us
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Drawing Conclusions

Teaser: A UBC study gives money to homeless people, Steven Guilbeault slams Canadian Oil while in China, and Chrystia Freeland is given a speeding ticket. Also, judges might have paid the Liberals before being appointed.

Recorded Date: September 2, 2023

Release Date: September 3, 2023

Duration: 52:03

Edit Notes: None

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX