Above photo: Senator Kim Pate has been a strong advocate for Basic Income. Senate of Canada.
Basic Income isn’t a utopian dream.
It is a real policy initiative that is working its way through Parliament right now.
Although few people would explicitly declare that poor people are morally deficient, our welfare systems are nonetheless designed around suspicion rather than support.
Like many social assistance policies, opposition to guaranteed income is driven by a deep-seated fear of fraud — of “freeloaders” benefiting from the taxes of hard-working, morally upright citizens. Our collective delusion that we live in a meritocracy is operationalized into a punitive framework that rationalizes who deserves help and who does not.
As a result, we spend enormous administrative effort policing eligibility, while leaving many people without adequate help. Poverty persists not because we lack resources, but because we mistrust the people who need them.
From policing poverty to preventing it
For years, a guaranteed livable basic income has been framed as a radical or unrealistic idea—something perpetually out of reach in Canadian politics. That narrative no longer holds. Basic income is not only being debated seriously at the federal level; it is making its way through Parliament.
Senate Bill S-206, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, passed second reading last month and is currently before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Sponsored by Senator Kim Pate, the bill reflects a growing recognition that income insecurity is not a marginal issue but a structural one. According to Senator Pate, a guaranteed livable basic income has the potential to lift people out of poverty, reduce crime, and support those attempting to leave abusive relationships.
This is not a fringe proposal. It is a pragmatic response to well-documented social failures.
A bill that refuses to die
The road to S-206 has been long, but persistent. In 2021, NDP Member of Parliament Leah Gazan introduced Bill C-223, the National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act, in the House of Commons. Although the bill was defeated in 2024, the idea did not disappear.
Senator Pate had already introduced an identical bill—S-233—in the Senate. That bill died when the 44th Parliament was dissolved, but it was revived in the current session as S-206. This continuity matters. It signals that basic income is no longer a one-off proposal tied to a single MP or party, but a sustained policy effort with institutional backing.
What the evidence actually shows
Canada is not entering this conversation blindly. The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment, better known as “Mincome,” offers one of the most significant real-world tests of guaranteed income anywhere in the world. Conducted in Winnipeg and Dauphin, Manitoba in the 1970s, Mincome provided a guaranteed annual income to participants and tracked the results.
Subsequent analysis (Forget, 2011) found only modest reductions in working hours among recipients, primarily among new mothers and students. Far from abandoning work, people used the income stability to make rational, life-enhancing choices.
More strikingly, crime rates dropped by 17.5 per cent. Researchers also observed improvements in physical and mental health in Dauphin during the pilot period. While the data cannot conclusively attribute these outcomes to guaranteed income, the correlation is difficult to ignore.
In short, the social collapse predicted by opponents never materialized.
Will people still work?
The most common argument against basic income is that it will discourage participation in the labour market. But this question is often misdirected.
For those of us who have our basic needs covered, work is not just about income. For many people, employment—or self-employment, caregiving, or artistic practice—provides structure, social connection, purpose, and dignity. Unemployment is consistently associated with higher rates of depression and anxiety, not leisure and fulfillment.
Basic income is not about making people wealthy. It is about ensuring that no one falls below a minimum standard of living. The assumption that people will stop contributing if their basic needs are met reveals more about our distrust of human motivation than about economic reality.
This is not just an economic question. It is a psychological, philosophical, and moral one—and it deserves to be informed by the lived experiences of people navigating poverty in Canada.
We already have Basic Income—for some
Perhaps the strongest argument for basic income is that Canada already uses it selectively. The Canada Child Benefit and the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors are both forms of basic income. From 2021 to 2026, seasonal workers in 13 regions have received up to nine additional weeks of Employment Insurance to bridge gaps between work periods.
These programs rarely provoke outrage. Why? Because their recipients are perceived as “deserving.” They fit narratives that make sense to the public: parents raising children, seniors who have “paid their dues,” workers temporarily between jobs.
The problem is not the policy. It is who we believe deserves economic security.
Reframing the conversation
If basic income is to succeed politically, it may need a reframing. Everyone benefits from taxpayer-funded services—roads, hospitals, fire protection—yet few people think of themselves as recipients of public assistance.
When it comes to structural problems, prevention is more complicated to sell than crisis response. We are more willing to pay to clean up a disaster than to stop it from happening in the first place. See deregulation and climate change for some good examples.
A guaranteed livable basic income could reduce spending on emergency healthcare, policing, shelters, and the justice system. It is not charity; it is cost-effective governance.
Perhaps we need clearer language. Call it “micro-investments in crisis prevention.” Or be more direct: a food-and-shelter supplement. It is difficult to imagine a credible politician openly campaigning against ensuring that people can eat and keep a roof over their heads.
Basic income is not a utopian dream. It is a practical solution whose time has arrived—we need to ensure it becomes a reality.
