Universal basic income in Canada
Universal basic income (UBI) in Canada is about a long-running debate on whether everyone should get a regular cash payment from the government, and how that would affect work and poverty. The idea has roots going back to the 1930s with the social credit movement.
Two big Canadian experiments tried ideas related to basic income. The Mincome project ran in Manitoba from 1974 to 1979, in Winnipeg and the town of Dauphin. It tested a guaranteed income for participating families and looked at work, families, and communities. The Ontario Basic Income Pilot started in 2017 and aimed to run for three years, but it was cancelled by the new government in 2018 after distributing payments to about 4,000 people. The hope was to see how a basic income would affect poverty and work.
Earlier attempts included Alberta’s Social Credit efforts in the 1930s, led by Premier William Aberhart, who wanted a basic income but was blocked by the federal government.
In 1970, the federal government released a white paper saying a guaranteed income could reduce poverty but might also lessen people’s incentive to work. It urged more study before any wide adoption. In 1976, the National Council of Welfare supported considering a guaranteed annual income for Canada.
Canada’s Mincome was modeled after U.S. experiments that tested negative income tax concepts. The aim was to see how a basic income would affect work, what level of benefit would be best, and what it would cost. In the U.S. studies, some reduction in work was seen, but results varied. In Mincome, the drop in work was small—about 1% for men and 3% for wives. The findings also suggested that extra income could allow teenagers to stay in school longer and that education levels could improve over time.
Public opinion on basic income has varied. By 2014, several major parties and groups in Canada supported exploring basic income. In 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a new trial, but Ontario’s pilot was halted in 2018.
The British Columbia government later looked at basic income and released a 2021 report. It concluded that a universal basic income would be very costly and that a single, universal program is not the best or most fair way to address diverse needs. The panel suggested a mixed approach with targeted supports for groups like youth leaving care or women escaping violence. It also noted that simply giving everyone a fixed income could be far more expensive than income-tested programs that provide similar poverty reduction. The panel estimated that a universal approach could cost tens of billions more and that pilots cannot prove long-term effects.
Two main models fall under the broader idea of a guaranteed income. The negative income tax (NIT) gives cash to people below a certain income level, with taxes on higher earnings, designed to encourage work. The unconditional or universal basic income (UBI) would give payments to everyone, with higher earners paying more through taxes but still receiving a base amount. In practice, the NIT experiments showed modest effects on work and some positive social outcomes, while UD/UBI remains controversial because of its high cost and the challenge of meeting many different social needs with a single program.
Today, Canada’s debate continues. Many see benefits in reducing poverty and improving security, while others worry about costs and the best way to get people into better jobs and independence. The trend toward policy mixes—combining targeted supports with broader safety nets—has become a common path in discussions about Canada’s social and economic future.
This page was last edited on 2 February 2026, at 23:00 (CET).