Do you support a universal basic income program?

Yes, but it should be somewhat regulated to ensure no one is abusing the system.

A Nordic style basic income that is enough for something but not enough to get by in order to incentivise people to go to work.

Not until the welfare and disability services have been reworked, sorted out, and audited.

Yes, but only for skilled workers and the employed, and those on disability, medical leave, or parental leave

Yes everyone should recieve an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing but in order to receive the basic income an individual or a family member must be working, if both family members are working they both should receive the UBI individually. If one family member is working then it should be a family UBI raising child or children and single they must work part time or full time in order to receive UBI with child in subsided day care. If an individual is single and’s n decides not to work, and on a provincial welfare program as well as receiving child tax benefit…  Read mores then no UBI is given. If laid off continue UBI along with the same rules and time frame as the EI stipulates. Disabled persons should automatically be given the UBI on top of any disability or disability pension payment’s as well as disregarding a spouses income.

Yes, however if they do not qualify for disability, they should have to complete mandatory volunteer hours in their community equal to the amount of aid they are receiving, divided by minimum wage

Yes, though a solution for 'non-financial contributions to the community' must be implemented as a condition to receive the basic income if taxes ar enot paid beyond the basic income

This is too complex, There is a risk people will not work and people who do work may become unmotivated as their money goes to others. Yet there is also a possibility this truly benefits someone who needs it and works hard.

Yes, but with stringent standards and regulations. An individual must prove a reason for their underemployment or unemployment, and the universal basic income should come with reasonable limits. I think it should function more as an income top-up or rebate to cover expenses related to food, housing, transportation, etc.

Yes but make it a small amount. Enough to help people get by but also not so much that people can afford housing without working.

I support it in theory, however I think it is often a band-aid solution that can be addressed more easily by having more socialized: housing, health care, and education; wage growth that matches to the cost of living; and overall a more supportive socialized/public care network. People wouldn't need extra cash if they could already afford their basic needs, which they would be able to do if those basic needs were affordable or supported by the government.

Yes, but just for low income people to cover basic needs including food and housing, and it should be separate from government assistance programs.

Not really, there should be more free education and help for people to get jobs and make these jobs have livable wages

Yes, but it should only be enough to help cover part of basic living expenses to deter people from living solely on the provided income

Yes, but not entirely. It should be capped at a certain percentage. So that it can help people in need of housing and basic needs, but not enough to encourage people to not work or cause mass harm to economic growth.

No, Universal Basic Income should not be unconditional for everyone, but everyone should have a minimum guaranteed income. People should be able to earn more based on their merit, job, and education.

This is something that must be decided in a voting, I don't have an opinion on this and I do not have enough information, I would rather let the public decide

No, since it only acts as a self defence mechanism of capitalism, marginally improving the lives of the worker insofar as it protects the rich

Everyone should qualify for this type of program as long as they are able to contribute meaningful to the economy, with the exception of the disabled and elderly.

Yes, everyone should receive income to cover basic necessities (including food and housing). If an individual is found in violation of misusing the funds, they should face consequence (community service, military enrolment) and disqualify from being eligible for benefits again until assessed & deemed as responsible to receive. Some inquiry should be made into mental health (serious illnesses only that impair function) and learning disabilities when handling these situations. Those with significant disabilities obviously are cared for without hesitation or limitation. Addiction is not excu…  Read moresed. Those who are able to work must contribute to the workforce, with the exception of pairings in a household — if one partner is working full time, the other may be permitted to be a homemaker or stay-at-home parent, so long as they are not requiring further financial aid.

Yes, if a living wage cannot be decided let's provide welfare plus a universal wage.

Low income struggling but trying yes. Wealthy people that can get by no

Provide or subsidise basic needs. Do not give money outright.

No, lower the taxes instead

Yes, but just enough to assist and not replace

Yes, but only if employed.

yes, but not indefinitely so as to give people a chance to get on their own 2 feet, rather then becoming dependant on the government to live.

I think this will encourage people not to work and harm economic growth so in order to be inclusive of the universal basic program, you have to prove you are willing and capable to put into society that society gives to you, if its not working an actual job, then being a volunteer, etc

This will overtime develop a class of powerless consumer who owns nothing and has just enough government money to survive month to month

Yes, UBI should cover the essential/ minimal costs of living, replacing EI, GIS, OAS and Welfare and implement a "claw back" in taxes on a graduated scale so those with higher incomes end up paying it back.

As long as the people who partake in the program are contributing to the economic growth by aiding in certain areas of work

Yes, but only for women, in order to increase the Canadian fertility rate we need to support women both during the pregnancy and child rearing years

I think people who are working and still have trouble making ends meet should receive support, I think people with certain illnesses, students as long as your contributing to society or can prove you can not work.

No, because if everyone has more money, they have more spending power, and companies that sell the basic necessities will simply raise their prices in accordance with this (inflation). The government will essentially end up giving money to corporations that aren't in need and not helping those who are.

Yes, but only for people with mental and/or physical disabilities. For others, implement a universal job: a universal income which is conditioned on working offered jobs. Such jobs should mostly focus on benefiting the community (e.g., public gardening/art, working with the elderly).

In the event we can fix our economy, reduce our defecit, catch up on housing, and unclog public services then yes. But right now we can’t afford it

Not something universal but something that lifts everyone making below 60k a year up to a standard of living of about 50 to 60k per year. to fund this we should eliminate disability, CPP, EI and income assistance programs, put all of it into 1 agency and slash the cost of the administration needed for it.

Yes with stipulations of proof they are looking for work or trying to return to work each month before receiving pay

Instead of money provide land and teach people how to grow food/provide for themselves. But we won’t because there’s too much money in selling the fish instead of teaching the man how to fish.

I support a basic income program, but not universal. Not everyone requires one so a threshold is necessary.

Yes, but not for those who abuse the system or have ongoing criminal links. STRONG checks and balances in place to prevent taxpayer funds being wasted.

Yes, in the event that it completely replaces the welfare state and is only provided to citizens who are below a determined threshold of need

Yes but it depends on how it is implemented and the regulations associated. I feel the focus should be more on people getting paid livable wages for their work

No, but the government should do everything they can to make living more affordable to Canadians through social housing developments and other things.

Yes, but only so long as it is paired with educational and vocational training along with drug testing.

Yes, only when it helps support families covering basic necessities however this should not make all jobs pay the same as the pay standard should remain but allow for support towards families who need it.

I think that we should do a trial run of it, because some countries have seen positive impacts and others not. If we do implement it, make it so that people still have to work to survive, but it's a little easier

We should start building the framework for what this program would look like as costs of living are expected to continue rising

Yes, but only if it replaces other social programs such as Disability income, unemployment, and phases out old age pensions.

Universal income should depend on the degree of need of the citizen. For as long as the citizen in mind is also working a viable job or receiving an education, then they should be guaranteed income to help them with high costs necessities.

Give people enough to afford housing and they can work for everything else. People deserve a roof and the safety of a home.

No, universal basic income may come at the expense of far more efficient and very important social service and welfare programs.

No, but corporations should be required to pay their employees livable wages, respective to the cost of living in the employee's area

Yes, replace all current welfare with a universal welfare rate to simplify, and improve consistency.

No, but everyone should have access to food and housing, so the UBI should be money they can use only for those things.

The minimum standard of living should be achieved for all citizens. The question should be asked.”what is the minimum amount of support you would want a family member or loved one would receive from the community/society?” Having a welfare program that doesn’t provide enough to live is a problem. Being a life long welfare recipient is a problem. There can be requirements such as participation in education and skill development as part of the funding. The idea is you want to keep people motivated and get them enough to be safe, hygienic, fed and employable.

Yes, but only for those under certain financial cutoff conditions and taking family size and location into consideration.

No, but programs should be in place to encourage everyone to work, and assistance provided for low income households and welfare discouraged

Yes, but only for individuals & households on lower incomes, & have them no longer receive it once they pass a certain income threshold.

Yes but it's still too early. We should be doing research on how to implement these as automation becomes a larger part of the economy and AI displaces a larger amount of the workforce.

Yes, but it should be conditional, such as, if you make more than $60k per year as a single person you do not get the ubi.

Yes, in the future if automation is prevalent enough in the economy to slow down velocity of money and freeze spending/demand.

No. Communism is the most evil ideology/governance model attempted, it destroys everything. Get the government out of people’s lives to the greatest extent practical.

Yes, but through the provision of free and universal access to high quality secondary and pos-secondary education, health care (including dental and an increase in preventative health services), subsidized low-income housing, and low-income subsidies for nutritious food. (This is separate from permanent disability programs - those should guarantee a universal basic income.)

No, instead free and universal access to high quality secondary and pos-secondary education, health care (including dental and an increase in preventative health services), subsidized low-income housing, and low-income subsidies for nutritious food. (This is separate from permanent disability programs - those should guarantee a universal basic income.)

maybe... it could either be detrimental to encouraging people to work less but this may increase employment opportunities for those in need of employment.

I think this is something that will end up having to evolve as more work is taken up by AI, but not yet.

If there is an economy to support this, yes.

No, focus should be on supporting citizens to access affordable food and shelter and finding meaningful training and employment. There should be more public funding to support civic participation in the arts, sports and local governance. Give everyone more of a low barrier opportunity to participate in their community instead of giving people money. Support for those with serious disabilities should be increased instead.

No, because there isn't actually an agreed upon lowest Income necessary for living. UBI would inevitably vary among the provinces.

Yes, this will help people to at least cover their foremost needs.

good for me but not for everyone else also if i have to pick one, the i pick no, this will encourage ...

Yes, but to cover basic needs. If you work and are productive, you should receive proper compensation.

Bro what does this mean

Everyone deserves food, shelter and home.

Yes, but only for citizens.

Yes but only for people who are making under a certain amount.there should be a strict application process.

Everyone should be entitled to a basic income based on their location. Govt should make up shortfall if someone cannot make the threshold

Yes, but only if there are no strings attached.

Yes, but it should be a flexible UBI dependant on federal income tax bracket.

Yes, but only for citizens

To some extent. Must be people who positively contribute to society

Yes, but anyone receiving assistance should have drug testing.

UBI is good for those who can't work due to medical reasons, mental health reasons or sudden loss of job. People who do work and pay higher taxes should not have to be responsible for funding these areas for people who just refuse to work.

Yes, but not allowing people to drop work and only live off government supply.

I support a basic income for canadians that need it, starting with replacing the social welfare system and making a basic income available for canadians when they need it.

No, it is not financially viable and hurts disabled Canadians.

I support more study into its effectiveness.

In theory but I’m sceptical of the financing.

Yes, at $300,000 a year, but will not replace a working income. (or should not replace a working income)

I think it should be looked into

Government should use tax dollars to supplement low income families but they have to work in order to receive it

Yes, with a specific criteria to be eligible

Only as a replacement for current welfare programs, not as an additional benefit.

No, this will encourage people not to work and harm economic growth. As well as attract lazy people to our country…

Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing but this will encourage people not to work and harm economic growth

No, but find some way to help people in need