Canada does not have a universal basic income. Two bills now before the 45th Parliament, Bill S-206 in the Senate and Bill C-253 in the House of Commons, would require the federal government to build a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income paid to nearly every adult living in the country. Neither has become law, and earlier versions died when Parliament was prorogued in January 2025.
The Bills Currently Before Parliament
Senator Kim Pate reintroduced her basic income legislation in May 2025 as Bill S-206, the National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act.1Parliament of Canada. National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act A companion bill, C-253, was introduced in the House of Commons. Both must start the legislative process from scratch, including committee study and votes at each reading stage.
The previous versions carried the same title and the same substance. Bill S-233 passed second reading in the Senate in April 2023 and was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which heard expert testimony and stakeholder consultations before Parliament ended.2Parliament of Canada. S-233 44th Parliament, 1st session – LEGISinfo The House companion, Bill C-223 from MP Leah Gazan, was defeated at second reading on September 25, 2024. The Commons is the harder path.
What the Framework Would Actually Require
The bills do not create a basic income program. They require the Minister of Finance to develop a national framework for implementing one. That distinction matters: the legislation sets a legal obligation to plan, consult, and report, but the payment amounts and delivery mechanisms would be worked out through the framework process.
The framework would have to be built through formal consultations with provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous governing bodies, municipal governments, and community experts.3Senate of Canada. News Release – Senate Finance Committee Studies Guaranteed Livable Basic Income It would have to reflect actual living costs (housing, food, utilities) which vary across the country, and it would have to complement public healthcare, education, and subsidized housing rather than replace them.
The Minister of Finance would have one year after the law takes effect to finalize the framework and table a report in both chambers. A comprehensive evaluation would be due to Parliament five years after that first report.4Parliament of Canada. National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act
Who Would Be Eligible
Eligibility is deliberately broad. The framework would cover any person over the age of 17 living in Canada, including temporary workers, permanent residents, and refugee claimants.4Parliament of Canada. National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act The threshold of 17 captures young adults entering the workforce or starting post-secondary education. The basis is residency and need, not citizenship or tax history.
Detailed eligibility rules are left to the framework development process, so the exact cutoffs, residency tests, and application mechanics do not exist yet.
How It Would Interact With Existing Benefits
The legislation includes a non-reduction clause. The framework must include measures ensuring that basic income payments do not result in any decrease in services or benefits meant to meet exceptional needs related to health or disability.4Parliament of Canada. National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act Someone receiving Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or provincial disability benefits would keep those payments on top of any basic income amount.3Senate of Canada. News Release – Senate Finance Committee Studies Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Prescription drug coverage, dental care, and housing subsidies tied to existing programs would remain in place.
The design tension is real. If basic income stacks on top of everything else, costs climb steeply. If it replaces some programs, the non-reduction clause limits how much can be offset. That tension drives the funding debate.
What It Would Cost
The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s updated analysis puts the gross cost of a national guaranteed basic income in 2025–26 at roughly $57 billion under a broader family unit definition, rising to $112.4 billion under a narrower nuclear family definition.5Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A Distributional Analysis of a National Guaranteed Basic Income The difference turns on whether household need is calculated by nuclear family or by the broader economic family sharing a dwelling.
The PBO also draws a sharp distinction between gross and net cost. The gross amounts would be substantially offset by eliminating federal and provincial refundable tax credits that basic income would replace. After those offsets, the remaining net cost to government is estimated at $3.6 to $5 billion, reflecting the behavioural response of reduced work hours among some recipients.5Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A Distributional Analysis of a National Guaranteed Basic Income
Critics have noted that this offset model requires eliminating tax credits many middle-class families currently use, which could leave a majority of households marginally worse off even as poverty drops sharply. Other design questions remain open: payment levels, phase-out rates as earnings rise, which existing programs get folded in, and how provinces share the cost. Higher phase-out rates can produce a welfare wall, where effective marginal tax rates discourage recipients from earning more.
What Canada Has Already Tested
The debate is not starting from zero. Between 1974 and 1979, the federal and Manitoba governments jointly ran Mincome, a guaranteed annual income experiment centered in Dauphin, Manitoba, where every family below a set income threshold could receive a supplement. Researchers later found that hospitalizations dropped among participants, particularly for accidents, injuries, and mental health diagnoses, and that more high school students stayed in school rather than leaving for paid work.
In 2017, Ontario launched a three-year pilot enrolling roughly 4,000 people between 18 and 64 who earned below $34,000 individually or $48,000 as a couple. Participants received up to $1,415 per month, and those with disabilities received up to $1,915. Benefits decreased by 50 cents for every dollar earned through employment. Among participants, 83% reported better mental health, 86% said they ate better, and 75% felt more prepared for financial emergencies. A change in provincial government in 2018 cut the pilot short after 18 months, before the research team could complete its data collection.
The Canada Emergency Response Benefit paid $2,000 per month to millions who lost income during the COVID-19 shutdowns of 2020. CERB was not designed as a basic income, but it functioned like one, and it changed the political conversation: fifty senators signed a letter urging the government to build on CERB by establishing a crisis minimum income as a stepping stone toward permanent reform.
Where the Provinces Stand
Prince Edward Island’s legislature passed an all-party motion supporting a basic income demonstration project, and a working group designed a proposal pegged at 85% of the official poverty line. British Columbia’s expert panel examined a basic income in 2020 but recommended targeted reforms to existing programs instead. No province has implemented a permanent basic income on its own, and most provincial proposals assume federal funding and coordination as prerequisites.
Provincial cooperation matters because social assistance and disability benefits are delivered provincially. A province that refuses to participate could effectively block implementation within its borders, which is why the federal legislation emphasizes consultation rather than mandating a single national payment.