This Cross-Canada overview provides a national perspective on the two principal elements of the Welfare in Canada report: our analysis of total welfare incomes in each of Canada’s 13 provinces and territories, and some of the key features of social assistance programs as they compare across the country. 

In this section you will find:

---

Welfare incomes across Canada

Our analyses of total welfare incomes in the provinces and the territories are presented separately due to the significant differences in the cost of living and the nature of income security programs in the North. Both sections include:

• An overview of the amount of total welfare incomes,
• An analysis of changes to welfare incomes from the previous year,
• An overview of income adequacy relative to Canada’s poverty measures,
• An analysis of income adequacy by household, and
• An analysis of the proportion of total welfare income from provincial/territorial and federal sources by household.

Both sections also examine the reduction in carbon tax rebate payments between 2024 and 2025 and the provision of cost-of-living payments in some jurisdictions in 2025.

Note that the assumptions behind the calculations of total welfare incomes are available in the Methodology section.

---

Provinces

Total welfare incomes in the provinces in 2025 and changes since 2024

Table 1CA shows the maximum total welfare incomes that the example household types in each province would have received in 2025. It also compares the difference between the 2024 and 2025 total welfare incomes of households in each province without adjusting for inflation.

Table 1CA: Total welfare incomes in 2025 and percentage of change since 2024 for all example households in each province, in current dollars

Legend:

* The national rate of inflation between 2024 and 2025 was 2.1 per cent, as discussed above.

Note: BFE refers to the Barriers to Full Employment category of Alberta’s Income Support program. AISH refers to Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped program. MBFE refers to the Medical Barriers to Full Employment category of Manitoba’s Employment and Income.

The cost of living increased nationally by about 2.1 per cent in 2025. As such, households whose total welfare incomes increased by less than 2.1 per cent would have been worse off in 2025 than in the previous year. Note that the national Consumer Price Index (CPI) is used instead of regional CPIs. (Statistics Canada. (2025, January 16). Consumer Price Index, annual average, not seasonally adjusted. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1810000501.) To remain consistent with Statistics Canada, we use 2.1 per cent in the text. However, our calculations are based on the slightly more accurate calculation of the annual inflation rate of 2.05 per cent between 2024 and 2025, but this difference does not materially affect these findings.

Although the CPI measure of inflation reflects changes in consumption patterns and remains the most robust indicator of changes to living costs, it is important to recognize that inflation impacts households in very different ways depending on their circumstances.

Highest and lowest total welfare incomes by household:

• Unattached single considered employable: The highest total welfare income was for the household in Quebec receiving Manpower Training measure (MAN) benefits at $26,464. The lowest was for Nova Scotia at $9,525. (In Quebec, approximately only 3 per cent of social assistance recipients receive MAN benefits, representing a very small proportion of the total caseload in the province.)
• Unattached single with a disability: The highest total welfare income was for the household in Alberta receiving benefits from the Alberta Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) program at $23,791. The lowest was also in Alberta, for the household receiving benefits through the Barriers to Full Employment (BFE) program at $12,553.
• Single parent with one child: The highest total welfare income was for the household in Prince Edward Island at $32,778. The lowest was for the household in Nova Scotia at $23,110.
• Couple with two children: The highest total welfare income was for the household in Prince Edward Island at $53,209. The lowest was for the household in New Brunswick at $34,131.

Loss of carbon tax rebate payments

In 2025, the federal government removed the federal fuel charge (the “carbon tax”), which also meant the end of carbon tax-related rebate payments. This policy change applied not only in the provinces in which the Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR) had been in effect but also in the provinces and territories that had their own carbon pricing and rebate programs.

As a result, the CCR and the BC Climate Action Tax Credit ended in spring 2025, meaning that households in nine provinces – Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Ontario – received significantly reduced rebate payment amounts in 2025 compared to 2024. The differences in carbon tax-related rebate payment amounts between 2024 and 2025 for the example households in the provinces are indicated in Table 2CA below.

Note that the 2025 data captures only a partial-year loss, as the carbon tax rebate payments continued until April. The full-year loss will be reflected in the 2026 data.

Note also that Quebec did not participate in the federal fuel charge, as the province operates its own cap-and-trade system and was therefore excluded from the federal rebate program. As a result, households in Quebec did not receive carbon tax-related rebate payments prior to the end of the CCR.

Table 2CA: Differences in carbon tax rebate payments in the provinces, 2024 to 2025

Note: BFE refers to the Barriers to Full Employment category of Alberta’s Income Support program. AISH refers to Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped program. MBFE refers to the Medical Barriers to Full Employment category of Manitoba’s Employment and Income.

Cost-of living payments

Cost-of-living payments, which are additional time-limited financial supports related to the higher cost of living resulting from high inflation, continued to be made available to households in two of the ten provinces in 2025: British Columbia and New Brunswick. (Welfare in Canada has included inflation-related cost-of-living payments in our total welfare income calculations since 2022. Please see the 2022, 2023, and 2024 editions for details on payments that were available in those years.)

In British Columbia, both households with children received a supplement to the BC Family Benefit, called the BC Family Benefit Bonus, for the first six months of 2025 in the amount of $36.50 per month for a first child and $22.91 per month for a second child. In New Brunswick, all example households received the Household Supplement, which was a basic social assistance benefit provided to all households in the amount of $200 per person per month.

Note that these payments are included in the amounts in Table 1CA. The Methodology section outlines the methodology used to determine which benefits were included in our calculations and how we accounted for benefit changes related to the higher cost of living in 2025.

Trends in welfare income changes in the provinces since 2024

Welfare income changes between 2024 and 2025 fall into three categories: increases above inflation, increases below inflation, and decreases. The proportions of households in each category are shown in Figure 1CA. As noted above, the calculations do not take inflation into account but only compare the nominal difference between the 2024 and 2025 total welfare incomes of households in each province.

As noted above, the cost of living increased nationally by 2.1 per cent in 2025. As such, households whose total welfare incomes increased by less than 2.1 per cent would have been worse off in 2025 than in the previous year. And, as noted earlier, the national CPI is used instead of regional CPIs; the use of the latter would have resulted in slightly different analysis.

Figure 1CA: Welfare income changes in relation to inflation, in the provinces, 2025

Total welfare income increases above inflation: Just under one third of the example households in the provinces – 13 out of 44, or 30 per cent – saw their welfare incomes increase by more than the cost of living between 2024 and 2025. This means their incomes kept up with or exceeded the rising cost of living.

The highest percentage increase was for the unattached single with a disability in Nova Scotia at 10.6 per cent. The couple with two children and the unattached single considered employable in Newfoundland and Labrador followed with increases at 5.1 and 4.7 per cent, respectively. The other ten increases above inflation ranged between 2.2 and 2.9 per cent.

The reasons for these increases varied and are detailed in each jurisdiction’s Total welfare incomes section. It is notable that British Columbia and New Brunswick provided cost-of-living payments as a response to the higher cost of living, Prince Edward Island introduced a new provincial child benefit program, and Newfoundland and Labrador restructured monthly Basic and Shelter benefits and introduced a new Back to School benefit.

Total welfare income increases below inflation: Nearly half of the example households – 20 out of 44, or 45 per cent – saw their total incomes increase in real dollars between 2024 and 2025, but at a rate below the 2.1 per cent inflation increase, which means their incomes did not keep up with the rising cost of living.

Households in Alberta, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan saw their incomes increase below the rate of inflation as a result of improved social assistance and child benefits – through specific policy changes or indexation to inflation – that outweighed the reduction in carbon tax-related rebate payments. However, the resulting increases were not enough to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living, as measured by the national CPI.

In some provinces, households saw below-inflation increases that were primarily due to annual indexation of provincial and federal tax credits, as no changes were made to some or all of their basic social assistance benefits in 2025. This was the case for the households in British Columbia (for the Basic Support Allowance and the Shelter Allowance), Manitoba (for Basic Necessities), Ontario (for Ontario Works), and Quebec (for Manpower Training program benefits). In the first three cases, incomes were also affected by the reduction in carbon tax-related rebate payments.

Total welfare income decreases: Eleven of the 44 households, or about 25 per cent, saw their total incomes decrease in nominal dollars between 2024 and 2025.

The steepest declines were for the unattached singles considered employable in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, which were 2.0, 1.7, and 1.5 per cent, respectively. These declines were the result of the combination of the significant reduction in carbon tax-related rebate payments and issues related to social assistance benefits. In Ontario and British Columbia, provincial social assistance benefits remained unchanged between 2024 and 2025; in Alberta, the indexation-related increase to social assistance benefits was not enough to outweigh the reduction in the carbon tax rebate amounts.

Declines also occurred in Alberta for the unattached single with a disability receiving BFE and Newfoundland and Labrador for the unattached single with a disability. These declines were the result of unchanged social assistance benefits.

Welfare income component changes in the provinces since 2024

Table 3CA categorizes each of the six welfare income components – provincial basic and additional social assistance benefits, provincial child benefits and tax credits, and federal child benefits and tax credits – in all ten provinces into whether they were: (1) increased through a policy change, (2) increased through inflation indexing, (3) eliminated, (4) left unchanged, (5) a newly-introduced benefit or credit, or (6) a cost of living benefit that continued to be paid.

This table provides a high-level summary of the changes. For specific details, including whether a change applies to all households, please refer to each jurisdiction’s section in this report.

Table 3CA: Changes to total welfare incomes in the provinces, 2025

Note: Please consult each jurisdiction’s Total welfare incomes section for more information, including explanations of abbreviations used in the table.

Adequacy of welfare incomes in the provinces in 2025

The data in this section shows how the 2025 total welfare incomes of each example household type in the provinces compared to the 2025 Market Basket Measure (MBM), which is Canada’s Official Poverty Line, and the 2025 Deep Income Poverty (MBM-DIP) threshold.

As discussed in the Methodology section, both total welfare incomes and the poverty thresholds are calculated for the largest city or municipality in each province. This is reflected in the black and grey lines in Figures 3CA through 6CA, which show that the poverty thresholds vary depending on region. The figures also show the wide range in the adequacy of total welfare incomes across Canada’s provinces.

The MBM is used in our analysis to identify which example households would have been living in poverty in 2025. The MBM-DIP, which is equivalent to 75 per cent of the Official Poverty Line, is used to identify which example households would have been living in deep poverty in 2025. As a 2020 Institute for Research on Public Policy report indicated, “Living in deep poverty means that individuals and families must use all of their income to meet basic necessities such as shelter and food, making it virtually impossible to address other needs or plan for their future.” (Herd, D., Kim, Y., & Carrasco, C. (2020, September 15). Canada’s forgotten poor? Putting singles living in deep poverty on the policy radar. Institute for Research on Public Policy.)

Note that neither the MBM nor the MBM-DIP accounts for the higher cost of living faced by people with disabilities and that these additional costs are not reflected in our analysis.

Overview

The welfare incomes of 43 of the 44 example households in the provinces were below Canada’s Official Poverty Line, which means that 98 per cent of the example households were living in poverty in 2025. The exception was in Quebec, where the welfare income of the unattached single considered employable (MAN) was 105 per cent of the MBM. It is important to note, however, that only about 3 per cent of social assistance recipients received MAN benefits in 2025, which means that only a very small share of the total caseload in the province received incomes at this level. (Oliveira, T. (2026). Social assistance summaries, 2025. Maytree.)

In addition, 35 of the 43 example households living in poverty (i.e., 81 per cent) were also living in deep poverty in 2025. These households had welfare incomes that were between 43 and 98 per cent of the MBM-DIP, and between 33 and 74 per cent of the MBM.

Figure 2CA: Total welfare incomes in the provinces relative to poverty thresholds, 2025

Between 2024 and 2025, very few changes occurred in total household incomes relative to the Official Poverty Line (MBM) and the Deep Income Poverty threshold (MBM-DIP):

• None of the incomes of the 44 example households moved above or below the MBM, meaning none of the households moved out of or into poverty.
• One of the 44 example households had an income at the MBM-DIP in 2024, but it declined to below the threshold in 2025. None of the incomes of the other households moved above or below the MBM-DIP.
• The income of the unattached single considered employable in Quebec (MAN) remained above the MBM but had a slight decline in adequacy.
• The incomes of nine households remained above the MBM-DIP but below the MBM.
  • Of these, two had slight improvements in adequacy: the couple with two children (AIM) in Quebec, and the couple with two children in Prince Edward Island.
  • Four had slight declines in adequacy: the unattached single with a disability in Alberta (AISH), the unattached single with a disability and the single parent with one child in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the unattached single with a disability in Prince Edward Island.
• The incomes of 35 households remained below the MBM-DIP.
  • All households in British Columbia and Saskatchewan remained below the MBM-DIP and all had slight declines in adequacy. Slight declines were also seen in three of the five households in Manitoba and three of the four households in Ontario; the others remained essentially unchanged.
  • The income of only four households remained below the MBM-DIP while seeing slight improvements in adequacy: the unattached single with a disability households in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and the unattached single considered employable and the couple with two children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Adequacy by household

Unattached single considered employable

Figure 3CA shows the relationship between the total welfare incomes of the example unattached single considered employable households in the provinces and both the Official Poverty Line (MBM) and the Deep Income Poverty threshold (MBM-DIP). The MBM is indicated by the black lines and the MBM-DIP is indicated by the grey lines.

Figure 3CA: Adequacy of total welfare incomes for example unattached single considered employable households in the provinces, 2025

Note: AIM refers to Quebec’s Aim for Employment program. MAN refers to Quebec’s Manpower Training measure. See the Quebec section for more information about these programs.

• Ten of the 11 unattached single considered employable households in the provinces had incomes below the MBM and as such would have been living in poverty in 2025.
  • All ten of these households also had incomes below the MBM-DIP and therefore would have been living not only in poverty but also in deep poverty.
  • Eight of these ten households had incomes that were below 50 per cent of the MBM. The lowest were in Alberta at 37 per cent, Nova Scotia at 35 per cent, and Ontario at 33 per cent.
  • The two households that had incomes closest to the MBM-DIP were the household in Prince Edward Island, at 88 per cent of the MBM-DIP (or 66 per cent of the MBM), and the household in Quebec receiving the Aim for Employment program, at 81 per cent of the MBM-DIP (or 60 per cent of the MBM).
• The one household that was not below the MBM had a welfare income that was 5 per cent above the Poverty Line: the unattached single considered employable receiving the Manpower Training measure in Quebec.
  • This household was also above the MBM-DIP, with a welfare income that was 40 per cent above the Deep Income Poverty threshold.
  • As noted above, only about 3 per cent of social assistance recipients received MAN benefits in 2025, which means that only a very small share of the total caseload in the province received incomes at this level.

Unattached single with a disability

Figure 4CA shows the total welfare incomes of the example unattached single with a disability households in the provinces relative to both the Official Poverty Line (MBM) and the Deep Income Poverty Threshold (MBM-DIP). The MBM is indicated by the black lines and the MBM-DIP is indicated by the grey lines.

Figure 4CA: Adequacy of total welfare incomes for example unattached single with a disability households in the provinces, 2025

Note: BFE refers to the Barriers to Full Employment category of Alberta’s Income Support program. AISH refers to Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped program. MBFE refers to the Medical Barriers to Full Employment category of Manitoba’s Employment and Income Assistance program. MSPD refers to the Manitoba Supports for Persons with Disabilities program. See the Alberta and Manitoba sections for more information.

• All 12 of the example unattached single with a disability households had incomes below the MBM and as such would have been living in poverty in 2025.
  • Ten of these 12 households had incomes below the MBM-DIP and therefore would have been living not only in poverty but in deep poverty.
  • Two of the 12 households had welfare incomes above the MBM-DIP: the household in Alberta receiving AISH at 80 per cent of the MBM, and the household in Newfoundland and Labrador at 77 per cent of the MBM.
  • The household with the least adequate welfare income was the Alberta household receiving BFE, at 42 per cent of the MBM, followed by the household in New Brunswick at 52 per cent and the household in Manitoba receiving MBFE at 55 per cent.

Single parent with one child

Figure 5CA shows the total welfare incomes of all the example single parent with one child households in the provinces relative to both the Official Poverty Line (MBM) and the Deep Income Poverty Threshold (MBM-DIP). The MBM is indicated by the black lines and the MBM-DIP is indicated by the grey lines.

Figure 5CA: Adequacy of total welfare incomes for example single parents with one child in the provinces, 2025

Note: AIM refers to Quebec’s Aim for Employment program. MAN refers to Quebec’s Manpower Training measure. See the Quebec section for more information about these programs.

• All ten of the example single parent with one child households in the provinces had incomes below the MBM and as such would have been living in poverty in 2025.
  • Seven of these ten households had incomes below the MBM-DIP and therefore would have been living not only in poverty but in deep poverty.
  • The household with the most adequate welfare income, or the income closest to the MBM, was in Prince Edward Island at 84 per cent.
  • The household with the least adequate welfare income was in Ontario, at 54 per cent of the MBM, followed by the household in Nova Scotia at 60 per cent.
  • Only three of the ten households had welfare incomes above the MBM-DIP: Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Couple with two children

Figure 6CA shows the total welfare incomes of all example couple with two children households in the provinces relative to both the Official Poverty Line (MBM) and the Deep Income Poverty threshold (MBM-DIP). The MBM is indicated by the black lines and the MBM-DIP is indicated by the grey lines.

Figure 6CA: Adequacy of total welfare incomes for example couple with two children households in the provinces, 2025

Note: AIM refers to Quebec’s Aim for Employment program. MAN refers to Quebec’s Manpower Training measure. See the Quebec section for more information.

• All 11 of the example couple with two children households had incomes below the MBM in 2025 and as such would have been living in poverty in 2025.
  • Eight of these 11 households also had incomes below the MBM-DIP, meaning that they would have been living not only in poverty but in deep poverty.
  • The three households with the most adequate incomes, or incomes that were closest to the MBM, were in Quebec at 94 per cent for the AIM household and 98 per cent for the MAN household, and in Prince Edward Island at 97 per cent. These households were the only ones with incomes above the MBM-DIP threshold.
  • The households with the least adequate welfare incomes were in Ontario and New Brunswick, at 56 and 62 per cent of the MBM, respectively.

Provincial and federal shares of income supports

Households receiving provincial social assistance benefits in 2025 were also eligible for tax-delivered supports from those jurisdictions as well as from the federal government.

The federal benefits available to Welfare in Canada households in the provinces in 2025 were:

• The GST/HST Credit (and Credit Supplement, where applicable),
• The Canada Child Benefit for households with children, and
• The final two payments from the Canada Carbon Rebate (formerly known as the climate action incentive) for households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Ontario.

Figures 7CA and 8CA show how much of the total welfare incomes of households receiving social assistance in all ten provinces came from provincial versus federal sources in 2025. Figure 7CA shows the data for unattached single households while Figure 8CA shows the data for households with children.

As these figures show, the proportion of income received from federal sources is far surpassed by the proportion received from provincial sources in all ten jurisdictions, especially for unattached single households.

Figure 7CA: Proportion of total welfare income from provincial versus federal sources for unattached single households, 2025

The welfare incomes of unattached singles in the provinces in 2025 were mainly composed of benefits from provincial sources: between 92.7 and 98.0 per cent came from the provinces while only 2.0 to 7.3 per cent came from federal sources.

These households received between $354 and $979 from federal sources, which for unattached singles were the GST/HST Credit (and Credit Supplement, where applicable) and the Canada Carbon Rebate for households in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. Note that British Columbia had its own provincial carbon tax-related rebate program, which also ended in 2025.

Figure 8CA: Proportion of total welfare income from provincial versus federal sources for households with children, 2025

The households with children in the provinces received a much larger proportion of their total welfare incomes from the federal government than the unattached single households in 2025. They received between 27.7 and 43.4 per cent of their incomes from federal sources and between 56.6 and 72.3 per cent from provincial sources.

The difference in proportionality between households with children and unattached single households stems not only from the higher actual amounts of federal income supports provided to households with children through the GST/HST Credit (and Credit Supplement, where applicable) but also and primarily because these households also received the Canada Child Benefit. In our analysis, the households with children in the provinces received between $8,763 and $15,276 in federal payments, which contrasts the significantly lower amounts received by unattached single households.

---

Territories

Total welfare incomes in the territories in 2025 and changes since 2024

Table 4CA shows the maximum total welfare incomes that the example households in each territory would have received in 2025. As mentioned earlier, although we calculated the incomes in the territories using the same methodology that we used for the provinces, the provinces and territories are not directly comparable due to significant differences in the cost of living and the nature of income security programs in the North.

Table 4CA also compares the 2024 and 2025 total welfare incomes of households in each territory without adjusting for inflation. The cost of living increased nationally by about 2.1 per cent in 2025. As such, households whose total welfare incomes increased by less than 2.1 per cent would have been worse off in 2025 than in 2024. Note that the national CPI is used instead of regional CPIs.

Although the CPI measure of inflation reflects changes in consumption patterns and remains the most robust indicator of changes to living costs, it is important to recognize that inflation impacts households in very different ways depending on their circumstances.

Table 4CA: Total welfare incomes in 2025 and percentage of change since 2024 for all example households in each territory, in current dollars

* The national rate of inflation between 2024 and 2025 was 2.1 per cent, as discussed above.

Welfare incomes in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were generally higher than those in the provinces, reflecting the higher cost of living in the territories. However, welfare incomes in Nunavut were considerably lower than in the other two territories; this is because many households who receive social assistance in Nunavut also live in public housing where rent and other housing costs are highly subsidized. (See “Components of welfare incomes” and “Changes to welfare incomes” in the Nunavut section of this report for further information.)

Highest and lowest total welfare incomes by household:

• Unattached single considered employable: The highest total welfare income was in the Northwest Territories at $33,273. The lowest was in Nunavut at $12,426.
• Unattached single with a disability: The highest total welfare income was in the Northwest Territories at $37,272. The lowest was in Nunavut at $15,488.
• Single parent with one child: The highest total welfare income was in the Northwest Territories at $47,038. The lowest was in Nunavut at $22,609.
• Couple with two children: The highest total welfare income was in the Yukon at $65,348. The lowest was in Nunavut at $38,569.

Loss of carbon tax rebate payments

In 2025, the federal government removed the federal fuel charge (the “carbon tax”), which also meant the end of carbon tax-related rebate payments. This policy change applied not only in the provinces in which the Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR) had been in effect but also in the provinces and territories that had their own carbon pricing and rebate programs.

As a result, all three carbon tax-related rebate programs in the territories ended in spring 2025, meaning that households in all three territories received significantly reduced rebate payment amounts in 2025 compared to 2024. The differences in carbon tax-related rebate payment amounts between 2024 and 2025 for the example households in the territories are indicated in Table 5CA below.

Table 5CA: Differences in carbon tax rebate payments in the territories, 2024 to 2025

Cost-of living payments

Cost-of-living payments, which are additional one-time financial supports related to the higher cost of living resulting from high inflation, were not available to any of the households in any of the territories in 2025. (Welfare in Canada has included inflation-related cost-of-living payments in total welfare income calculations since 2022. Please see the 2022, 2023, and 2024 editions for details on payments that were available in those years.)

Trends in welfare income changes in the territories since 2024

Welfare income changes between 2024 and 2025 fall into three categories: increases above inflation, increases below inflation, and decreases. The proportions of households in each category are shown in Figure 9CA below. As noted above, the calculations do not take inflation into account but only compare the nominal difference between the 2024 and 2025 total welfare incomes of households in each territory.

As noted above, the cost of living increased nationally by 2.1 per cent in 2025. As such, households whose total welfare incomes increased by less than 2.1 per cent would have been worse off in 2025 than in the previous year. And, as noted earlier, that the national CPI is used instead of regional CPIs; the use of the latter would have resulted in slightly different analysis.

Figure 9CA: Welfare income changes in relation to inflation, in the territories, 2025

Total welfare income increases above inflation: Five households in the territories saw their total incomes increase by more than 2.1 per cent between 2024 and 2025. Four of those five households were those in the Northwest Territories and one was in the Yukon.

The highest percentage increase was in the Northwest Territories for the single parent with one child at 15.8 per cent, followed by the unattached single considered employable at 13.6 per cent. The unattached single with a disability and the couple with two children in the Northwest Territories had increases of 9.0 and 3.6 per cent, respectively. The increase for the single parent with one child in the Yukon was 2.2 per cent.

The increases in the Northwest Territories were primarily due to the effect of receiving a higher Basic Allowance from Income Assistance for the full year. The increase in the Yukon was primarily due to indexation of social assistance benefits at a rate higher than the national CPI.

Total welfare income increases below inflation: Three households in the territories saw their total incomes increase below the rate of inflation in 2025, all of which were in the Yukon. These below-inflation increases were the result of increases to social assistance benefits at a rate that outweighed the loss of carbon tax-related rebate payments and, for the case of the couple with two children, that also outweighed small reductions in territorial child benefits and the GST credit. Although this combination of factors meant that these incomes increased, the increases were not enough to keep pace with the cost of living, as measured by the national CPI.

Total welfare income decreases: Four of the households in the territories saw their total incomes decrease in 2025 and they were all in Nunavut. The declines were due to the reduction in carbon tax-related rebate payments that outweighed inflationary increases to territorial and federal tax credits.

Note that it is likely that our calculations have overestimated the depth of poverty of the example households in Nunavut. See the Methodology section for more information.

Welfare income component changes in the territories since 2024

Table 6CA categorizes each of the six welfare income components – provincial basic and additional social assistance benefits, provincial child benefits and tax credits, and federal child benefits and tax credits – in the territories into whether they were: (1) increased through a policy change, (2) increased through inflation indexing, (3) eliminated, (4) left unchanged, (5) a newly-created benefit or credit, (6) a cost of living benefit that continued to be paid, (7) a cost of living benefit that was eliminated, or (8) a COVID-19 pandemic-related benefit that was eliminated. 

This table provides a high-level summary of the changes. For specific details, including whether a change applies to all households, please refer to each jurisdiction’s section in this report.

Table 6CA: Changes to total welfare incomes in the territories, 2025

Note: Please consult each jurisdiction’s Total welfare incomes section for more information.

Adequacy of welfare incomes in the territories in 2025

The data in this section shows how the 2025 total welfare incomes of each example household type in the territories compared to the Northern Market Basket Measure (MBM-N), which is Canada’s Official Poverty Line for the territories, and the Northern Deep Income Poverty (MBM-N-DIP) threshold, for 2025. (In November 2022, Statistics Canada released the finalized Northern Market Basket Measure (MBM-N) for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The MBM-N for Nunavut was finalized in November 2023. Since then, it has become possible to assess the adequacy of welfare incomes in the territories using these thresholds, which are updated annually.)

As discussed in the Methodology section, total welfare incomes and the poverty thresholds are calculated for the largest city in each territory. This is reflected in the black and grey lines in Figures 10CA through 14CA, which show that the poverty thresholds vary depending on region. The figures also show the range in the adequacy of total welfare incomes across Canada’s territories.

The MBM-N is used in our analysis to identify which example households would have been living in poverty in 2025. The MBM-N-DIP, which is equivalent to 75 per cent of the Official Poverty Line, is used to identify which example households would have been living in deep poverty in 2025.

As explained in the Methodology section, the MBM-N thresholds we use for Nunavut have been adjusted to include the subsidized rental unit type rather than the non-subsidized rental unit type that is generally used in MBM and MBM-N thresholds, given that our example households are assumed to be living in social housing. Because even the adjusted thresholds are not fully representative of the actual shelter benefits received by our example households, which are very low given that social housing shelter costs are heavily subsidized, it is likely that our calculations overestimate the depth of poverty experienced by the example households in Nunavut.

Note that neither the MBM-N nor the MBM-N-DIP accounts for the higher cost of living faced by people with disabilities and that these additional costs are not reflected in our analysis.

Overview

Of the 12 households in the territories, all had a total welfare income that was at or below the MBM-N in 2025. Five of the households had incomes that were below the MBM-N-DIP, which means that 42 per cent of the households would have been living in deep poverty in 2025. The other seven, or 58 per cent, had in comes that were between the MBM-N-DIP and the MBM-N or at the MBM-N.

Figure 10CA: Total welfare incomes in the territories relative to poverty thresholds, 2025

Between 2024 and 2025:

• None of the incomes of the 12 example households moved above or below the MBM-N, meaning none of the households moved out of or into poverty. Similarly, none moved above or below the MBM-N-DIP, meaning no household moved out of or into deep poverty.
• The incomes of all the households in the Northwest Territories remained above the MBM-N-DIP and saw slight improvements in adequacy.
• The income of the unattached single with a disability, the single parent with one child, and the couple with two children in the Yukon remained above the MBM-N-DIP but saw slight declines in adequacy.
• The incomes of the five other households remained below the MBM-N-DIP and either remained unchanged or saw slight declines.

Adequacy by household

Unattached single households
Figure 11CA shows the total welfare incomes of all the example unattached single considered employable and unattached single with a disability households in the territories relative to both the Official Poverty Line (MBM-N) and the Deep Income Poverty Threshold (MBM-N-DIP). The MBM-N is indicated by the black lines and the MBM-N-DIP is indicated by the grey lines.

Figure 11CA: Adequacy of total welfare incomes for example unattached single households in the territories, 2025

• All six unattached single households in the territories had incomes that were below the MBM-N and therefore would have been living in poverty in 2025.
  • Of those six households, three had incomes below the MBM-N-DIP and thus would have been living not only in poverty but in deep poverty.
  • The household with the most adequate income, or highest relative to the MBM-N, was the unattached single with a disability living in the Northwest Territories, with an income of 98 per cent of the MBM-N.
  • The households with the least adequate incomes, or lowest relative to the MBM-N, were both in Nunavut, with the unattached single considered employable at 29 per cent of the MBM-N, and the unattached single with a disability at 37 per cent of the MBM-N. See the discussion about Nunavut’s MBM-N thresholds above.

Households with children
Figure 12CA shows the total welfare incomes of all example single parent with one child and couple with two children households in the territories relative to both the Official Poverty Line (MBM-N) and the Deep Income Poverty Threshold (MBM-N-DIP). The MBM-N is indicated by the black lines and the MBM-N-DIP is indicated by the grey lines.

Figure 12CA: Adequacy of total welfare incomes for example households with children in the territories, 2025

• All six households with children in the territories had incomes that were below the MBM-N and therefore would have been living in poverty in 2025.
  • Of those six households, two had incomes below the MBM-N-DIP and thus would have been living not only in poverty but in deep poverty.
  • The households with the most adequate incomes, or highest relative to the MBM-N, were the couple with two children in the Yukon at 96 per cent, followed by the single parent with one child in the Yukon at 93 per cent.
  • The households with the least adequate incomes, or lowest relative to the MBM-N, were both in Nunavut, which was also the case for the unattached single households. The single parent with one child in Nunavut had an income at 38 per cent of the MBM-N, and the couple with two children had an income at 46 per cent of the MBM-N. See the discussion about Nunavut’s MBM-N thresholds above.

Federal and territorial shares of income supports

Households receiving territorial social assistance benefits in 2025 were also eligible for tax-delivered supports from those jurisdictions as well as from the federal government.

The federal benefits available to Welfare in Canada households in the territories in 2025 were:

• The GST/HST Credit (and Credit Supplement, where applicable), and
• The Canada Child Benefit for households with children.

Figures 13CA and 14CA below show how much of the total welfare incomes of households receiving social assistance in the three territories came from territorial versus federal sources in 2025. Figure 13CA shows the data for unattached single households while Figure 14CA shows the data for households with children.

As these figures show, the proportion of income received from federal sources is far surpassed by the proportion received from territorial sources in all jurisdictions, especially for unattached single households.

Figure 13CA: Proportion of total welfare income from territorial versus federal sources for unattached single households, 2025

The welfare incomes of unattached singles in the territories in 2025 were mainly composed of benefits from territorial sources: between 97.1 and 98.6 per cent came from the territories while only 1.4 to 2.9 per cent came from federal sources.

These households received between $354 and $526 from federal sources, which for unattached singles was solely the GST/HST Credit (and Credit Supplement, where applicable).

Figure 14CA: Proportion of total welfare income from territorial versus federal sources for households with children, 2025

The households with children in the territories received a much larger proportion of their total welfare incomes from the federal government than the unattached single households in 2025. They received between 18.6 and 38.8 per cent of their incomes from federal sources and between 61.2 and 81.4 per cent from territorial sources.

The difference in proportionality between households with children and unattached single households stems not only from the higher actual amounts of federal income supports provided to households with children through the GST/HST Credit (and Credit Supplement, where applicable) but also and primarily because these households also received the Canada Child Benefit. In our analysis, households with children in the territories received between $8,763 and $14,370 in federal payments, which contrasts the significantly lower amounts for unattached single households.

Key features of social assistance across Canada

As social assistance is a provincial/territorial responsibility, each of Canada’s 13 sub-national jurisdictions has its own program or programs with unique regulatory frameworks, administrative rules, eligibility criteria, benefit levels, and provisions for special benefits or other types of assistance. Although the specifics may vary, the basic structure of these programs is very similar across the country. The Key features of social assistance section of this report examines several important aspects of social assistance programs and how they vary across the country. Below is a summary of the information provided in each part of the Key features section. 

Eligibility for social assistance: Assets and income

In every jurisdiction, eligibility for social assistance is primarily based on a “needs test” that considers a household’s income and financial assets. Although these are not the only determinants of eligibility, they form the primary basis for both initial and ongoing eligibility.

The Eligibility for social assistance: Assets and income section provides information on how the “needs test,” which is composed of an asset test and an income test, determined eligibility in 2025. It also details the amount of assets a household was allowed, as well as the amount of income that a household could earn from work or receive from three key “unearned” sources (i.e., Employment Insurance regular benefits [EI], Canada Pension Plan retirement and disability benefits [CPP and CPP-D], and provincial and territorial workers’ compensation wage replacement programs). Although these asset limits and income exemptions are difficult to summarize because they vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, we identify some key trends in 2025 below.

Asset limits increased in 2025 in two jurisdictions:

• In Alberta, asset limits for households receiving Income Support benefits are based on a multiplier of basic benefit amounts, which themselves are indexed to inflation. As such, asset limits increased as of January 1 along with the inflationary increase to basic benefits. Note that asset limits in Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) program did not increase.
• In Quebec, amounts for dependent children of recipients are indexed annually, effective January 1 each year.

In 2025, earned income exemptions were increased in three jurisdictions:

• In Manitoba, the base earned income exemption for households in the Employment and Income Assistance (EIA) program was increased from $200 to $500 per month starting August 1. No changes were made to earnings exemptions in the Manitoba Supports for Persons with Disabilities (MSPD) program.
• In Quebec, the additional exemption that previously applied only to households receiving Aim for Employment program benefits was applied to other households receiving Social Assistance (SA) as well as those receiving Social Solidarity (SS) and was increased from 20 to 25 per cent of additional income. Previously, SA and SS households who earned more than the base exemption limits had any additional income reduced dollar-for-dollar from their benefits. These changes came into effect starting January 1.
• In Saskatchewan, the base earned income exemption for households in the Saskatchewan Assured Income for Disability (SAID) program increased by $1,000 per calendar year starting April 1, to $7,500 for singles, $8,700 for couples without children, and $9,500 for families.

As of 2025, only four jurisdictions provided some level of exemption for “unearned” income sources:

• British Columbia provided a partial exemption for income from some forms of workers’ compensation, with some forms treated as earned income for households receiving Disability Assistance. Other forms may be exempt up to the asset level for the household for all recipients.
• New Brunswick provided a partial exemption for income from CPP/CPP-D and QPP/QPP-D, for recipients only.
• The Northwest Territories provided partial exemptions depending on the income source and program. In one program, income from EI and some forms of workers’ compensation is treated as earned income while income from CPP is treated as unearned income and included in an overall exemption amount. In the other program, CPP-D is fully exempt while income from EI, CPP, and workers’ compensation is included in an overall exemption amount.
• The Yukon provided a partial exemption for the three key unearned income sources listed above based on its total exemption levels for both earned and unearned income.

See the Eligibility for social assistance: Assets and income section for more information.

Cost-of-living and shelter benefits breakdown

Provincial or territorial social assistance programs typically provide basic benefits for cost-of-living expenses, such as food and clothing, and for shelter and shelter-related costs, such as rent or mortgage payments, heating, or home insurance. These amounts may be calculated and delivered separately or combined into a single flat rate. In some instances, benefits for some of these costs are provided through “additional” benefits or through separate programs administered outside of social assistance.

The Cost-of-living and shelter benefits breakdown section provides details about how these benefits were delivered in 2025. In summary:

• Of the 13 provinces and territories, nine had two separate programs in 2025, one for people who are generally deemed employable and one for people who met specific criteria as a person with a disability. As such, 22 programs were examined. Of these:
  • 14 delivered cost-of-living and shelter benefits separately,
  • Five delivered them in one combined flat-rate amount, and
  • Two delivered them in both ways (the two programs in Quebec).

See the Cost-of-living and shelter benefits breakdown section for more information.

Shelter benefits for unhoused households

The Total welfare incomes sections of this report provide insight into the benefit amounts that were available to households in each province or territory in Canada in 2025. One of the fundamental assumptions behind our calculations of those benefit amounts is that households are housed and paying rent in the private market. When households are unhoused, however, the amounts of some of the benefits described in those sections, particularly those related to shelter costs, may not apply.

The Shelter benefits for unhoused households section provides detailed information about the ways in which we define “unhoused” for the purposes of comparing the amounts of basic social assistance benefits that unattached single households may be eligible for if they are housed versus unhoused. A summary of the differences in amounts in 2025 is in Table 7CA.

Table 7CA: Difference in basic social assistance benefit amounts for housed versus unhoused example unattached single considered employable households in 2025

The section also provides information about the shelter-related benefits available to households who are unhoused, as well as explanatory notes about the regulatory framework under which shelter benefits are provided in each province and territory.

See the Shelter benefits for unhoused households section for more information.

Indexation of benefits and credits

Individuals and families who receive social assistance benefits will also be eligible for financial support through refundable tax credits, child benefits for households with children, and, where applicable, additional social assistance payments. Some of these benefits and credits are indexed to inflation while others are not. Inflation indexing is important as it protects the value of benefits and credits from being eroded by increasing costs of living.

The Indexation of benefits and credits section provides detailed information about which provincial and territorial benefits and credits were indexed to inflation as of January 2025, insofar as those benefits apply to the example households in Welfare in Canada. In summary:

• Basic social assistance benefits were indexed in five jurisdictions: Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and the Yukon. In two other jurisdictions, these benefits were indexed in one program but not another (Manitoba for MSPD and Rent Assist but not EIA, and Ontario for ODSP but not OW).
• Additional social assistance benefits were indexed in two of the 12 jurisdictions that provided them: Alberta (for the Children’s School Expenses benefit) and Nova Scotia (the Disability Supplement).
• Provincial or territorial child benefits were indexed in five of the 11 jurisdictions where such a program existed and households receiving social assistance had access to the benefit: Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Quebec, and the Yukon.
• Provincial or territorial tax credits/benefits were indexed in three of the 11 jurisdictions where these credits/benefits existed: Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan.

See the Indexation of benefits and credits section for more information.

Access to data

All Welfare in Canada, 2025 data is available for download, including:

1. Components of welfare income for all households, with a breakdown of cost-of-living payments and the 2024-2025 difference in carbon tax-related rebate payments where applicable.
2. Welfare incomes in 2025 constant dollars over time for all households.
3. Welfare incomes in current dollars over time for all households.
4. Adequacy of welfare incomes: a comparison of each household’s welfare income with all four poverty and low-income thresholds in the provinces, and with the two poverty thresholds in the territories.
5. Adequacy over time: total welfare income relative to the Official Poverty Line (MBM or MBM-N) for each household in the provinces from 2002 to 2025 and for each household in the territories from 2018 to 2025.