The prevalence of poverty in Canada

What is poorness and what is the prevalence of poorness in Canada? Why does poorness be in a state like Canada? Is there a connexion between poorness and different population groups? What can be done to cut down and finally eliminate poorness?

Populating in a developed state like Canada, we are unmindful to poverty issues domestically and most of us fail to recognize such issues exist in our state. Most people do non cognize the difference between being hapless and life in poorness. Although, both footings relate to non holding money, they really have different significances. By definition, hapless is when an person has low income and wealth and has little to no ownerships, on the contrary, populating in poorness is the status of life without equal nutrient, shelter and vesture. Peoples by and large associate the term “ poorness ” with Africa or some topographic point in the universe that is undistinguished to their day-to-day lives. However, poorness exists wherever civilisation exists and the issue of poorness is more serious than many know. This paper will analyze the prevalence of poorness in Canada and why it exists in such a developed state. Furthermore, it will research the connexions between poorness of different population groups and eventually, it will propose ways to cut down poorness.

As mentioned antecedently, most people do non tie in the term “ poorness ” with Canada as the overall national prosperity has increased in the last few decennaries. Likewise, one would hold expected the opposite since Canada is ranked 4th in Human Development Index, a step of quality of life of their citizens under the undermentioned standards: life anticipation, literacy rates, school registration and the overall economic system of the state. Furthermore, most statistical surveies put Canada in the top 10 for best topographic points to populate ; a simple hunt on Google will return such consequences. However, despite the overall quality of life in Canada, behind the scenes, many people are hungering under Bridgess and standing on waysides keeping marks pleading for trim alteration. These persons contribute to the 10 % population of Canadians that live in poorness ( Collin et al. , 2009 ) . Although, the overall poorness rate is 10 % in Canada, the rates vary by state. British Columbia has the highest incidence of poorness followed by Quebec and Manitoba. In 2000 a survey was conducted by Kevin Lee, a member of the Canadian Council on Social Development, to compare poverty rates among states to exemplify a profile of poorness in Canada. His chief findings are ( Lee, 2000, p. 91 ) :

Poverty is mostly an urban phenomenon

From 1990 to 1995 the entire figure of hapless people in Canada increased dramatically

Certain population groups were more likely to be in poorness than others

Poverty rates varied harmonizing to age and gender

Poverty rates varied based on educational degrees

Poverty rates varied based on occupational accomplishment degrees

Harmonizing to Lee ‘s findings, the people that live in poorness or have a high opportunity of traveling into poorness are those who “ are society ‘s most vulnerable, most disadvantaged, and least equipt to vie in a highly-competitive and fast-polarizing labor market ” ( Pohl, 2002 ) .

Similarly, no affair how progress a civilisation is and how beforehand engineering is, there will ever be a part of the population that can non back up themselves financially. This could be a consequence of involuntariness to work or inability due to disablements. In 2006, statistics show that of all on the job age Canadians with disablements, merely 51.3 % were employed, 4.9 % were unemployed and the staying 43.9 % were non in the labour force. In contrast, the per centum of people without disablements that were non in the labour force was merely 19.8 % ( Collin et al. , 2009 ) . This deficiency of engagement in the work force is frequently a consequence of the nature of the disablement itself forestalling work, favoritism from employers, or unequal adjustments from the workplace.

Although poorness is a natural phenomenon, poorness rates vary between different population groups. Visible minority groups experience higher rates of poorness compared to bulk groups. These groups experience higher rates of poorness due to barriers to equal engagement in the occupation market and deficiency of entree to permanent, skilled, and moderately well-paying occupations ( Jackson, 2001 ) . Like seeable minorities, immigrants besides have a higher opportunity of traveling into chronic poorness. The undermentioned is from a Parliament Publication on poorness tendencies that illustrate cardinal findings on poorness tendencies among immigrants ( Collin et al. , 2009 ) :

Recent immigrants encounter more trouble happening employment than other Canadians. The 2007 employment rate for immigrants was 77.9 % , whereas the Canadian-born population had an employment rate of 83.8 % . In that twelvemonth, the unemployment rates among immigrants and non-immigrants were 6.6 % and 4.6 % , severally, while the unemployment rate of recent immigrants ( populating in Canada 5 old ages or fewer ) was more than double that of the Canadian-born population.

Recent immigrants are more vulnerable to low income than other Canadians. The most recent Census found that immigrants who had arrived in the predating five old ages and who were in economic households had a low-income rate of 32.6 % in 2005, while those who were unattached had a low-income rate of 58.3 % . By contrast, the several rates of low income among their non-immigrant opposite numbers were 6.9 % and 26.3 % .

In 2004, immigrants of working age ( 18-64 old ages ) who had arrived in Canada since the early 1990s had a low-income rate of 21.5 % , as compared with 11.2 % among earlier immigrants and 9.3 % among native-born Canadians. Of recent immigrants non populating on a low income, three out of five were considered vulnerable to this state of affairs. The same twelvemonth, the low-income rate among immigrants who had resided in Canada for 10 old ages or fewer ( 32.9 % ) was significantly higher than that among the entire population ( 14.2 % ) , harmonizing to the Low Income Measure.

Ratess of low income among recent immigrants tend to diminish with clip spent in Canada. In 2004, immigrants who had been in Canada for one twelvemonth had a low-income rate of 42.2 % , as compared with a low-income rate of 30.3 % among immigrants who had resided in Canada for 10 old ages. The difference between the low-income rates of immigrants and non-immigrants besides lessens over clip. The low-income rate of the 1992 immigrant cohort, for illustration, fell from 3.0 times the rate of the Canadian-born population during their first twelvemonth in Canada to 2.2 after 10 old ages. Although this tendency persists, the 2002 and 2004 immigrant cohorts displayed higher comparative rates of low income upon entry to Canada than cohorts in the 1990s.

Obviously, immigrants are more vulnerable and more likely to populate in poorness compared to Canadian-born persons. Society needs to happen a balance so more people can bask a better criterion of life.

In add-on, as Nelson Mandela one time said: “ Poverty is semisynthetic and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human existences. ” There are many actions society can take to take down poorness rates. It should get down with distinct jobs such as nutrient insecurity, so childhood chances such as instruction and employment, following is to concentrate on specific groups susceptible to poverty such as immigrants, in conclusion scaled from a local to pan-Canadian degrees in supplying low-cost lodging investings ( CWP, 2009 ) . Furthermore, in the Amnesty International ‘s run to undertake planetary poorness, they wrote ( CWP, 2009 ) :

“ Whatever program is pursued, whatever undertakings are prioritized, whatever aid bundle is agreed, no solution to poverty without human rights at its nucleus will hold any long-run impact. Protecting the rights of those populating in poorness is non merely an option – it is an indispensable piece of any solutionaˆ¦ . Economic growing is an of import constituent of a scheme to undertake poorness, but it can non be the lone piece. Governments must make the conditions that allow people populating in poorness to claim their human rights, to authorise themselves, so that they can be Masterss, and non victims, of their fate. ”

Like Nelson Mandela, the Amnesty Council besides feels that poorness can merely be resolved by worlds and specifying poorness as a human rights misdemeanor. Furthermore, effectual leading of Canadian authoritiess is critical to eliminate poorness. For illustration: 1. explicitly acknowledging poorness as a human rights issue ; 2. go throughing statute law to guarantee digesting governmental committedness and answerability for consequences ; 3. development and implementing comprehensive programs to battle poorness ; and 4. guaranting sufficient public investing in societal security ( CWP, 2009 ) . Furthermore, the Canada Without Poverty organisation suggests that paying populating rewards or better, supplying just and just benefits, and guaranting other nice working conditions for all employees, whether nonionized or non, is a major portion of the solution ( CWP, 2009 ) .

In decision, poorness seems to be inevitable and will ever be a shadow of civilisation. However, as Martin Luther King said: “ The expletive of poorness has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the pattern of cannibalism at the morning of civilisation, when work forces ate each other because they had non yet learned to take nutrient from the dirt or to devour the abundant carnal life around them. The clip has come for us to educate ourselves by the sum, direct and immediate abolishment of poorness. ” ( King, 1967 ) . Though we ‘re far from entire abolishment of poorness, society has evolved drastically since Martin Luther King made his address. Statisticss have shown that poorness rates have been diminishing in the last few decennaries. If all worlds recognize the issue of poorness and topographic point a greater focal point on the issue, there is no uncertainty that Martin Luther King ‘s dreams will go a world.


Collin, C. , & A ; Jensen, H. ( 2009 ) . A Statistical Profile of Poverty in Canada. Library of Parliament, 09. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from hypertext transfer protocol: //

CWP. ( 2009 ) . Canada Without Poverty A» Eliminating Poverty. Canada Without Poverty. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from hypertext transfer protocol: //

Jackson, A. ( 2001 ) . Poverty and Racism. Perception, 24 ( 4 ) . Retrieved July 30, 2010, from hypertext transfer protocol: //

King, ML. ( 1967 ) . Where Do We Travel from Here: Chaos or Community? .

Lee, K. K. ( 2000 ) . Urban Poverty in Canada: A Statistical Profile. Ottawa: Canadian Council On Social.

Pohl, R. ( 2002 ) . Poverty IN CANADA. Welcome at Street Level Consulting and Counseling – Susan Brandt. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from hypertext transfer protocol: //