Child and Family Poverty
in Saskatchewan: November 2012
116,000 people are poor
Newly released Statistics Canada data show that
11.9% of Saskatchewan’s population fell below
the low-income threshold in 2010.1 This represents
116,000 people living in poverty. Of these, 30,000 are
children under the age of 18. It is to be remembered
that the data do not include the “near poor” — men,
women and children — with incomes just above
poverty levels.
Poverty in Saskatchewan has fluctuated considerably
over the years but remained consistently above
the Canadian average. Only recently has this trend
reversed so that the provincial poverty rate now falls
below the national rate of 13% (4,332,000 indivi­
duals) (Chart 1).
This reversal is not altogether surprising. Saskatch­
ewan suffered less than other parts of the country t­hat
were thrown into deep recession with the financial
sector’s massive failure in 2008. Global demands
for Saskatchewan’s natural resources contributed to
the province’s success in weathering the recession
and strong economic expansion helped to push
poverty down to an all-time low of 11.7% in 2009.
Nonetheless, this recent improvement in the rate of
poverty cannot be considered a huge achievement
when ­compared to the tremendous upturn in the
province’s fortunes beginning in the mid-2000s.
Despite population and employment gains, despite
a buoyant real estate market and despite continued
optimism in a vibrant resource-rich economy,2 poverty
persists in Saskatchewan.
One concrete sign of poverty’s persistence is food
bank usage. In March 2012, Saskatchewan food banks
Chart 1. Percentage of All Persons in Poverty,
Saskatchewan and Canada 1976-2010
—— Saskatchewan
—— Canada
19% –
18% –
17% –
16% –
15% –
14% –
13% –
12% –
11% –
10% –
19767880828486889092949698000204060810
Source: Statistics Canada (2012). CANSIM Table 202-0802. Persons in
low income families for 2010, Saskatchewan, Canada, LIM-AT.
assisted 24,621 people who did not have enough to
eat. This is a 38.7% increase in food bank service
since 2008 and a 48.5% increase since 2002. Children
under the age of 18 comprised nearly half (47.5%)
of those forced to turn to food banks for help at this
time.3 Clearly, Saskatchewan’s economic growth has
not automatically brought prosperity and security
to all.
High poverty rates
for Aboriginals, the
unattached and lone parents
risk of poverty. Lone-parent families, on the other
hand, face numerous obstacles to advancing in the
workplace and enjoying stable long-term market
employment. The physical and psychological stress
of juggling work, household and family care-giving
demands as well as inflexible workplaces, no paid
leave, transportation issues and unaffordable q­ uality
child care pose some of the obstacles to market
employment for this group. Even when employed, this
family type is vulnerable to poverty. This is because
about nine of every ten lone parents are female and
females generally face workplace disparity in the
form of the gender wage gap.
Poverty rates vary across and within regions, commu­
nities, neighbourhoods and demographic groups.
Poverty is particularly severe among Saskatchewan’s
Aboriginal population. Although Aboriginal peoples
have made some gains in Saskatchewan, the 2006
Census data show that 37% are poor.4 Since the data
do not include the Aboriginal population living on
reserves, this figure could be even higher.
As a nation, Canada ranks 21st of 135 countries on the
gender gap index and 29th on the Wage E
­ quality for
8
­ orking
Similar Work scale. Part-time and seasonal w
women, women of Aboriginal identity and racialized
women are the worst off, sometimes e­ arning less than
half of what males earn. First generation r­ acialized
female immigrants, for example, earn 48.7 cents for
every dollar non-racialized male immigrants earn.9
The Census data also show that of the 130,000
individuals living in poverty in Saskatchewan in 2005,
more than one-third (46,000) lived as unattached
individuals aged 15 or over. Over 80% (40,000) of
these unattached were non-Aboriginal.5
Saskatchewan women saw some improvement in
labour market employment over the past decade.
Their average wage increased 4.6% each year,
­compared with a 2.3% inflation rate.10 Working
women in senior, high-salaried positions narrowed the
gender wage gap in 2009 and 2010. But salaries for
the average w
­ orking woman declined between 2010
and 2011, leaving a gender wage gap of 18.1%.11
The most recent low-income data show that while
poverty for the unattached living outside a family
unit6 has improved somewhat it continues to be much
higher than for individuals living in family units, with
or without children (Chart 2). Today, poverty strikes
unattached adults at a rate of 24.8% (39,000) for
Saskatch­ewan and 26.6% (1,320,000) for Canada.
Chart 2. Percentage of Persons in Poverty by
Family Type, Saskatchewan and Canada 2010
Saskatchewan
Canada
40% –
Lone-parent families experience an even higher
rate of poverty. In fact, they are the poorest of all
family types. In Saskatchewan during much of the
1990s and into the early 2000s, poverty among these
families remained above 50%. Today, 37.6% of
Saskatchewan’s lone-parent families live in poverty,7
compared to 31.8% for Canada.
35% –
30% –
25% –
20% –
15% –
10% –
5% –
When compared to couples and two-parent families,
Saskatchewan’s lone parents are more than four times
as likely to be poor. Couples and two-parent families
are more likely to have at least one person employed
full time outside the home thereby reducing their
0% –
All
Married Two-parent Lone-parentUnattached
Families CouplesFamilies Families Persons
with Children
Source: Statistics Canada (2012). CANSIM Table 202-0804.
­Persons in low income for 2010, by family type, LIM-AT.
2
Even with the recent gains made by female-headed
lone-parent families, their incomes remain lower than
those of male lone parents. Across Canada in 2010,
female single parents earned $43,300 in average aftertax income. This is about 78% of the income of male
single-parent families at $55,300.12
women’s lower market earnings, smaller pensions and
longer life expectancy.13
In Saskatchewan, male poverty occurs at a rate of
10.6%, compared to 13.2% for females. Male and
female children under the age of 18 are about the
same: 13.4% and 14.1%, respectively. Differences
begin to emerge in the working years, aged 18 to
64, when male poverty at 9.6% is lower than female
­poverty at 11.6%. ­
Although the unattached and lone parents do not fare
nearly as well economically as two-parent f­ amilies,
the latter have not made much headway across
Canada. Since 1990, two-parent family poverty has
stalled at around 9%. In contrast, Saskatchewan’s
­poverty rate for two-parent families has vastly
improv­ed after nearly topping 18% in the early 1990s.
Today, it falls slightly below the Canadian average.
Of course, without a practical plan to safeguard
families in the event of a turnabout in Saskatchewan’s
economic fortunes, poverty levels for all family types
could easily revert upward.
Among women aged 65 and over, poverty is a serious
problem, although it has declined since the mid1970s when almost one-half lived in poverty. Today,
18.2% of senior women live in poverty compared
to 11.2% for senior males. The situation is more
extreme for unattached females aged 65 and over.14
Poverty hits this group at a rate of 34.5% (11,000) in
Saskatchewan and 30.6% (272,000) in Canada. That
is, about one in every three unattached senior women
is poor.
Poverty more common
for females than males,
particular in senior years
During the 1990s, the rate of poverty for all s­ eniors
averaged about 5% in both Saskatchewan and Canada.
The expansion of the Canada Pension Plan and Old
Age Security, along with the growth of women’s
employment and private pension plans, helped
immensely in keeping elderly poverty in check.15
Since then, senior poverty has edged up to 15% for
Saskatchewan and 12.3% for Canada.16 The global
fiscal meltdown, higher living costs, chronically
low interest rates, defined contribution pensions
in place of defined benefit plans and now delayed
access to Old Age Security have eroded the incomes
of ­numerous elderly and those relying on savings
for retirement. Today’s seniors are poorer and more
than 17 times likely to become bankrupt or otherwise
insolvent than they were in 1990.17
Female poverty is generally higher than male poverty,
regardless of living situation (Chart 3). Some of the
reasons for this difference are the gendered division
of labour that leaves unrecognized and un-waged
the contributions of women to family life, as well as
Chart 3. Percentage of Males and Females in Poverty
by Age Group, Saskatchewan 2010
Male
Female
20% –
15% –
30,000 children live in
low-income households
10% –
Despite Saskatchewan’s tremendous wealth, 13.7% of
its children under the age of 18 fell below the poverty
line in 2010. This represents 30,000 children who live
in families with extremely limited access to economic
resources. The national child poverty rate is 14.5%, or
979,000 children (Chart 4).
5% –
0% –
Under Age 18
Aged 18-64
Aged 65 Plus
Source: Statistics Canada (2012). CANSIM Table 202-0802.
­Persons in low income for 2010, by age group and sex, LIM-AT.
3
One in five very young is poor
Chart 4. Percentage of Poor Children Under 18,
Saskatchewan and Canada 1989-2010
—— Saskatchewan
Although poverty for Saskatchewan children under
the age of 18 shows some decline, poverty for
­children under the age of six remains high. One in
five, or 20.5% (15,300), lives in a poor family. When
compared to the national rate of 15.7% (344,100),
Saskatchewan’s early child p­ overty rate is the third
highest in Canada, f­ ollowing ­Manitoba at 23.1% and
Prince Edward Island at 24.6%.20
—— Canada
28% –
26% –
24% –
22% –
20% –
18% –
16% –
14% –
A high poverty level among the very young is due
in part to the fact that the parents of young children
are often young themselves and have less work
experience, earn less and carry more debt than parents
of older children.21 Poor schooling, poor employment
prospects and the absence of mentorship and solid
networks of care can push vulnerable families with
young children into poverty.
12% –
10% –
1989
91939597990103050709
10
Source: Statistics Canada (2012). CANSIM Table 202-0802.
­Persons in low income for 2010, by province, LIM-AT.
Saskatchewan’s child poverty rate was 23.6% in
1989 — the year the Canadian House of Commons
unanimously resolved to end child poverty. The rate
remained above the national average until dipping
below in 2009. As with the decline in population
poverty, this downward turn largely reflects positive
market forces and economic expansion in the
province. It is too soon to say if the reversal is
temporary and it is d­ ifficult to generalize on the basis
of two years’ figures. Certainly, the trend over time
suggests that resolving the problem of child poverty
through progressive planning practices has not been
a priority.
The health and social consequences of being raised
in poverty at an early stage of life often are longlasting. The evidence from many countries shows that
individuals who spend their young, formative years in
poverty are
more likely to be in poor health, to have learning
and behavioural difficulties, to underachieve at
school, to become pregnant at too early an age,
to have lower skills and aspirations, to be low
paid, unemployed, and welfare dependent. While
many children of low-income families do not fall
into any of these categories, the fact is on average
children who grow up in poverty are likely to be at
a decided and demonstrable disadvantage.22
In a society that does not disregard any of its young
but defends the best interests of all children, the rate
of child poverty will be lower than that of the general
population.18 This is not so in Saskatchewan where the
child poverty rate (13.7%) exceeds population poverty
(11.9%) by nearly two percentage points. Similarly,
the rate of child poverty across the nation (14.5%)
exceeds the rate of overall poverty (13%). When
compared to 35 industrialized nations, Canada falls
midway, ranking 18th in the size of the gap between
child and population poverty.19
Not to be underestimated are the parallel costs to
society when it fails to adequately support parents
in caring for their young. These costs can include
“lower returns on educational investments, reduced
skills and productivity, an increased likelihood of
unemployment and welfare dependence, higher costs
of social protection and judicial systems, and the loss
of social cohesion.”23
4
44% of children in
female-headed lone-parent
families live in poverty
One-half of poor children live
in a family with full time work
It is commonly assumed that labour force attachment
is the way out of poverty. While full-time steady
earnings and the expansion of jobs are vitally
important poverty reduction strategies, they do not
guarantee freedom from poverty or necessarily lead
to self sufficiency.
The gendered nature of unpaid work and employment
shows up in the high rate of poverty among children
of lone-parent mothers. Only in the last few years has
the rate for these children in Saskatchewan decreased
from a long-standing average well above 50% to the
current level of 44%, or 13,000 children. Yet this rate
still exceeds the national average of 37.9% (326,000
children) and remains far above that for children
living in two-parent families: 8.7% for Saskatchewan
and 10.6% for Canada.
Almost nine out of ten (85.8%) children in
Saskatchewan live in families where at least one
person has a full-time, full-year job.26 This is
the highest proportion of all the provinces and a
positive indicator of Saskatchewan’s relatively low
unemployment.
Almost one-half of
Aboriginal children are poor
Unfortunately, a market economy has neither stopped
poverty nor deepened understanding of the poor
and their conditions. Numerous children continue
to live in low-income families where at least one
adult is fully employed, sometimes with other
family members working part time. Indeed, one-half
(50.6%) of all poor children in Saskatchewan lived
in such families in 2010. This is well above average
for Canada where 36% of poor children live in
families with at least one member employed full time
(Chart 5).
A long legacy of abuse, denigration and exclusion also
plays out in the poverty rates for Aboriginal children
and their families.24 According to the 2006 Census
data for Saskatchewan, 45% of all Aboriginal children
under the age of 15 lived in low-income families,
compared to 13% for non-Aboriginal children.25
Because the data do not account for poverty among
Aboriginal families living on reserves, the rate given
here offers only a partial picture.
Low pay, easy credit and rising prices contribute to
the growing ranks of working poor families. Housing
costs in particular are a serious financial burden.
Table 1 shows that within Saskatchewan’s three largest
cities — Prince Albert, Regina and Saskatoon —
Aboriginal children under the age of 15 are at a greater
risk of poverty than non-Aboriginal children. The
disparity is somewhat less in Prince Albert, but for all
cities the poverty rate for Aboriginal children is more
than three times that for non-Aboriginal children.
Chart 5. Percentage of Poor Children in Families with
at Least One Member Employed Full Time, Full Year,
Canada and Provinces 2010
60% –
Table 1. Percentage of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal
people and children in poverty, Prince Albert, Regina
and Saskatoon 2005
All ages
Sask. City
50% –
40% –
Children under age 15
30% –
NonNonAboriginal Aboriginal Aboriginal Aboriginal
Prince Albert
38
12
47
15
Regina
43
11
52
13
Saskatoon
45
13
56
14
20% –
10% –
0% –
BC AB SK MBONQCNB NS PECAN
Source: Statistics Canada 2006. Aboriginal Profile for Prince Albert,
2006 Aboriginal Profile for Regina, 2006 Aboriginal Profile for
­Saskatoon. Catalogue nos. 89-638X no. 2010003.
Source: Statistics Canada (2012). Survey of Labour Income and
Dynamics Masterfile, 2010. Custom Tabulations, LIM-AT. No data
for Newfoundland and Labrador.
5
In Saskatchewan, the loss of rent controls and the
accelerated expansion of condo-conversions and
private for-profit investment in urban property27 have
severely tightened the low-income rental market
and boosted accommodation costs to levels beyond
affordability for numerous families.28
In 2010, almost 20 million Canadians aged 16 and
over received some form of government transfer, an
11.7% increase from 2009.33 Government transfers
were a particularly effective tool in lifting 915,700
(46.8%) children in working families across Canada
from poverty. In Saskatchewan, transfer payments to
these families lifted 23,400 (49.9%) children from
poverty (Chart 6).34 The fact that more than 20,000
children would have fallen into poverty had their
families relied solely on employment income is
testimony to how essential government transfers are.
Nonetheless, in the movement away from universality
and welfare rights towards labour force attachment,
and to further distinguish the “deserving” from the
“undeserving” poor, it is important to remember that
transfer payments, like the CCTB, tend increasingly
to target children in working families over children in
jobless households.35
The situation is especially dire for families in jobs that
pay a minimum wage. In 2010, a Saskatchewan family
working 52 weeks at 40 hours a week at minimum
wage would have earned $19,240.29 This amounts to
$13,948 below the poverty threshold for a family of
three persons and $19,082 below for a family of four.30
For a single parent with one child in Saskatchewan,
the wage is only 71% of the income required to climb
above the poverty threshold of $27,098. To even
reach that threshold, that family would have to earn
$13.03 per hour. Moreover, a Regina family earning a
minimum wage would spend at least one-half on basic
accommodation,31 with the provincial rental housing
supplement providing some relief.
The state’s duty to assist all citizens equally with their
basic needs continues through economic lows and
highs. Unfortunately, in response to the economic
recession, a number of governments have instituted
austerity measures and slashed public spending,
including child benefits. Although Canada continues
to invest in child benefits during this period, its
policies suggest that children in poor families are
not a priority and that programs of support cannot be
guaranteed.36 On the other hand, the Saskatchewan
government, representing a “have” province focused
on a rich future, is in an excellent economic position
to engage Aboriginal and municipal governments,
A few employers fully recognize that a minimum
wage cannot provide a decent livelihood. They also
recognize that workers and the state should not alone
bear the costs of low wages. These employers opt to
pay a living wage, calculated to account for the cost of
living in the community. Living wages acknowledge
the workers’ productive contribution to the local
economy and, at the same time, offer the workers and
their families greater opportunity to benefit from that
economy.32 The introduction of a living wage is one
example of how economic activity can be mediated in
a socially responsive way.
Chart 6. Percentage Reduction in Child Poverty from
Government Transfers, Canada and Provinces 2010
Government transfers reduce
the number of poor children
80% –
70% –
Many families with children are able to avoid poverty
because of federal and provincial government transfer
payments. Federal transfers include Employment
Insurance, the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB),
the Universal Child Care Benefit and the GST/HST
Credit. Provincial government transfers include the
Saskatchewan Assistance Program, the Transitional
Employment Allowance, the Saskatchewan Rental
Housing Supplement, the Saskatchewan Child Care
Subsidy and other income supports.
60% –
50% –
40% –
30% –
20% –
10% –
0% –
BC AB SK MBONQCNB NS PE NLCAN
Source: Statistics Canada (2012). Survey of Labour Income and
Dynamics Masterfile, 2010. Custom Tabulations, LICO-BT.
6
civil sector organizations and the families most
affected in the search for viable solutions to the
social problem of poverty.
Growing income inequality
Income inequality is linked to social inequality and
social inequality undermines human bonds, breeding
unrest, polarization and dysfunction. Research on
modern capitalist societies shows that social and
health pathologies prevail when a small group of
people holds a disproportionate share of total income.
Conversely, societies do better when economic
activity is centred on the common good and income
is more evenly distributed.43
Child poverty in the
bottom third across nations
A UNICEF ranking of child poverty among 20
economically advanced countries having per capita
incomes of at least $31,000 places Canada fifth from
the bottom — above Japan, Italy, Spain and the
USA.37 (Saskatchewan with a slightly lower child
poverty rate would rank in the bottom half.) The USA
— ranked at the very bottom with child poverty at
23.1% — is dealing with a flood of low paying jobs
and the withdrawal of social security/cash assistance.
Unemployment benefits and food stamps are among
the few entitlements remaining for many of this
country’s socially and economically disadvantaged.38
Unfortunately, income inequality grows in both
Canada and Saskatchewan. Of all families with
children under the age of 18, the richest are gaining
the most while poor and mid-income families are not
faring as well.
Chart 7 depicts this growth disparity in Saskatchewan
by comparing five family median income deciles:
the two richest, the two poorest and families with
incomes in the middle. Between 1989 and 2010, the
top decile gained about $72,000 in median pre-tax
income.44 This is more than eight times the gains of
the poorest decile and nearly three times the gain of
mid-income families.
Canada is estimated to spend about 1.25% of GDP on
family benefits and tax policies. This is about one-half
the amount spent by Iceland, Finland, Netherlands,
Norway, Denmark and Sweden, all having lower
child poverty rates.39 These Northern European
countries manage market capitalism and its inherent
inequalities better than most other countries with
similar economies of scale, including Canada. With
relative poverty levels hovering between 6% and 7%,
these countries show that it is possible to reduce child
poverty.
Between 2005 and 2010, the median income of the
top 10% of Saskatchewan families with children
surged dramatically upward, even despite the global
market collapse in 2008. In these last six years alone,
Chart 7. Median Total Annual Income
of Families with Children, Five Selected Deciles,
Saskatchewan 1989-2010 (2010 $)
According to the Conference Board of Canada,
the success of the Nordic countries in maintaining
low rates of poverty “lies in universal welfare
policy that has been effectively combined with job
creation strategies that support gender equality and
accessibility.”40 UNICEF Canada also emphasizes
the impact of government policy and commitment
on poverty levels, stating: “In countries that accept
higher levels of child poverty, then, this is not entirely
a function of chance or economic necessity, but of
policy and priority.”41 Of course, the civil sector,
loaded with social capital and grassroot insight, has
a large role in pushing governments to move towards
ending poverty.42
—— Richest 10% – – – 2nd Richest —— Average
– – – 2nd Poorest —— Poorest
$210,000 –
$160,000 –
$110,000 –
$ 60,000 –
$ 10,000 –
1989
91939597990103050709
10
Source: Statistics Canada (2012). Survey of Labour Income and
Dynamics (SLID) Masterfile, CCPA Custom Tabulations.
7
this decile gained $36,000 — nearly seven times the
income gain of the poorest 10% and nearly twice that
realized by mid-income families.
Certainly, all Saskatchewan families with children
have experienced income growth with improved
economic conditions. But the richest have profited the
most, often at the expense of others. Some families
are worse off now as living costs stretch beyond
their means. The most vulnerable bear the brunt of
commodity increases, real estate speculation and the
overindulgent drive for profit and shareholder wealth.
As well, the top 10% of families with children have
continued to increase their share of total income. All
other deciles have seen their shares shrink. In 2010,
Saskatchewan’s richest 10% held more than onequarter of the province’s total pretax income; midincome families, less than 10%; and the poorest,
about 2% (Chart 8).
As the top 10% do better than ever, the poorest 20%
continue to live on incomes below the poverty line.
Government transfers are essential for supplementing
the income of these families but are often insufficient
to raise many from poverty.
Chart 8. Families with Children: Percentage Share of
Total Income by Decile, Saskatchewan 2010
The OECD recommends well-designed reforms to tax
and benefit policies as the most direct and powerful
approach to a fairer distribution of income and life
chances. Other recommendations for change include
the expansion of good jobs with benefits (e.g., dental,
medical, paid leave), greater employer investments
in employment training and greater access to formal
education throughout working life.45
Second
Richest
Richest
Middle
Poorest
A society must also be mindful of how people
treat each other and continuously assess abuses of
power and experiences of injustice. Such ongoing
public deliberations would be aimed at rebalancing
economic life and creating a mutually respectful
society in which all people have enough to live
without harm and all have the chance to develop their
gifts, contribute to socially meaningful work and feel
valued.46
Second
Poorest
Source: Statistics Canada (2012). Survey of Labour Income and
Dynamics (SLID) Masterfile, CCPA Custom Tabulations.
Poverty Indicators
Canada does not have an official income poverty line.
Instead, Statistics Canada produces three different
indicators of low income annually. Researchers use
one or more of these indicators to show poverty
levels. The indicators are the Low Income Cut-Off
(LICO) measure, the Market Basket Measure (MBM)
and the Low Income Measure (LIM). According to
Statistics Canada, when used together, these three
measures offer a more complete view of low income:
Though these measures differ from one another,
they give a generally consistent picture of low
income status over time. None of these measures
is the best. Each contributes its own perspective
and its own strengths to the study of low income,
so that cumulatively, the three provide a better
understanding of the phenomenon of low income
as a whole.47
This report relies primarily on the LIM (after tax),
a relative measure of low income. The LIM is
8
calculated according to a country’s median income
and is intended as a reference for international
comparisons. Using the LIM as a poverty measure
supports ongoing recommendations for Canada to
adopt a poverty line based on median income.48
Table 2. After-Tax LIM by Household Size 2010
Household Size
1
$19,161
2
$27,098
3
$33,188
4
$38,322
5
$42,845
6
$46,935
7
$50,965
8
$54,195
9
$57,483
10$60,592
Description of Poverty Measures
LICO. The Low Income Cut-Off measure is unique
to Canada. It considers people to be in low-income
if their household spends more than 20% the average
on food, clothing and shelter, adjusted for household
size and population area. Statistics Canada produces
two sets of LICOs and their corresponding rates:
the before-tax LICO and the after-tax LICO. The
before-tax LICO is based on total income from
market sources and government transfers, before the
deduction of income tax. Using this measure for 2010,
a Regina family of four is poor with an income below
$36,226.49 The after-tax LICO indicator is based on
after-tax or disposable income and generally provides
the lowest rates of all poverty indicators.
Source: Statistics Canada (2012). Table 202-0808. Low income
measure (after tax), persons in low income for 2010, by household
size, Canada.
Comparisons. A comparison of Saskatchewan’s child
poverty rate over the last decade using each lowincome indicator shows similar trends: the after-tax
LICO is always lower and the LIM is typically higher
than the other two measures (Chart 9). All indicators
show a small increase in child poverty early in the
decade followed by a general decline after 2006.
MBM. Statistics Canada has produced the Market
Basket Measure low-income scale since 2000. The
MBM defines low income in relation to the cost of a
predefined “basket” of essential goods and services,
including food, shelter, clothing and transportation.
The price of this basket is updated annually, taking
account of regional differences in the cost of living
and household size. The MBM has generated some
criticism such as its unrealistically low shelter costs.50
Chart 9. A Comparison of Low-Income Indicators:
Percentage of Poor Children under Age 18,
Saskatchewan 2000-2010
—— LIM-AT – – – LICO-BT —— MBM —— LICO-AT
30% –
25% –
20% –
15% –
LIM. The Low Income Measure is based on the
distribution of household income across a population.
It measures how the poorest are faring in relation
to the middle. With the LIM, an individual is poor
with a household income that is less than 50% of the
country’s median income, adjusted for the number of
persons living in the household. Table 2 lists the LIM
after-tax thresholds by household size for 2010. Using
the LIM, a Canadian household of four is poor when
its after-tax income falls below $38,322.
10% –
5% –
0% –
2000
01020304050607080910
9
Endnotes
1 Statistics Canada (2012). CANSIM Table 202-0802,
Persons in Low-Income Families – 2010, based on the
Low Income After-Tax Measure (LIM-AT). Data exclude
the homeless and individuals living on reserves or in
institutions or temporary shelters.
11 J. Buckland (2012). The Most Unfair Provinces for
Working Women MSN Money Report.
2 The Conference Board of Canada expects Saskatchewan
to lead all provinces with a 3.4% increase in GDP in 2013
and a 3.5% increase in 2014. Provincial Outlook Summer
2012: Economic Forecast Saskatchewan, 33. Accessed
through www.e-library.ca Unless noted, all Web references
cited in this report were accessed November 2012.
13 Together against Poverty Society (TAPS) (2012); http://
www.tapsbc.ca/research-links/feminization-of-poverty/
12 R. Sauvé (2012). The Current State of Canadian Family
Finances 2011-2012. The Vanier Institute of the Family,
Appendix A.
14 G. Hunter (2011). Poverty in Canada and Saskatchewan in
2011: No Closer to the Truth. Poverty Papers #4. Regina,
Saskatchewan.
15 National Advisory Council on Aging (2005). Seniors on
the Margins Aging In Poverty in Canada.
3 Food Banks Canada (2012). HUNGERCOUNT2012: A
comprehensive report on hunger and food bank use in
Canada, and recommendations for change, 22.
16 Statistics Canada (2012). CANSIM table 202-0802,
Persons in Low-Income Families, 2010.
4 B. Holden, N. Chapin, C. Dyck & N. Frasier, Poverty
Reduction Policies and Programs: Saskatchewan,
Canadian Council on Social Development, 2009, 5.
17 R. Sauvé (2012). The Current State of Canadian Family
Finances 2011-2012. Vanier Institute of the Family, 12.
5 Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population, Catalogue
no. 97-564-XCB2006002 — persons not in economic
families before low-income cutoff. New Census data
will be released in 2013. Unfortunately, the federal
government’s abolition of the long-form Census will limit
the data available for research. See <http://datalibre.ca/
census-watch/>
18 UNICEF Canada (2012). Poverty … The One Line
we want our kids to cross. UNICEF Report Card 10:
Measuring Child Poverty. Canadian Companion, 1.
19Ibid.
20 Statistics Canada (2012). Survey of Labour Income and
Dynamics (SLID) Masterfile, Custom Tabulations,
LIM-AT.
6 Statistics Canada (2012), Persons in Low Income, by
Economic Family Type, Cansim Table 202-0804. A family
unit, or economic family, is a group of two or more
people who live in the same dwelling and are related by
blood, marriage, common law or adoption. An unattached
individual is a person aged 18 and over living either alone
or with unrelated others, such as roommates or lodgers.
The unattached may be students living away from home,
young working adults on their own, non-custodial parents
on their own following a divorce or separation, or elderly
widows and widowers.
21 Vanier Institute for the Family (2010). Families Count:
Profiling Canada’s Families IV, 124.
22 UNICEF (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An
overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti
Research Centre Report Card 7, Florence, Italy, 5.
23 UNICEF (2012). Measuring Child Poverty: New league
tables of child poverty in the world’s rich centres,
Innocenti Research Centre Report Card 10, Florence,
Italy, 27.
7 Statistics Canada (Table 202-0804) quality indicators
advise the use of this figure “with caution”.
24 The Centre for Social Justice (2007-2012). http://www.
socialjustice.org/index.php?page=aboriginal-issues;
Public Service Alliance of Canada (June 2008).
8 World Economic Forum (2012). The Global Gender
Gap Report 2012. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_
GenderGap_Report_2012.pdfic.
25 Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population. Catalogue
Number 97-564-XCB2006002.
9 S. Block & G. E. Galabuzi (2011). Canada’s Colour
Coded Labour Market: The gap for racialized workers.
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Wellesley
Institute, 4.
26 Statistics Canada (2012). Survey of Labour Income and
Dynamics Masterfile, Custom Tabulations, 2010, LIM-AT.
27 Saskatchewan farmland is also the object of speculative,
private development (A. Magnan and M. Sommerville,
Feb. 2012, “Land Rush: Speculators stake claim to Prairie
farmland.” In Briarpatch Magazine).
10 Sask Trends Monitor. April 2011 A Statistical Profile of
Women in the Saskatchewan Labour Market, 3.
10
39 UNICEF Canada (2012). Poverty … the One Line we want
our kids to cross. UNICEF Report Card 10: Measuring
Child Poverty. Canadian Companion, 3.
28 Regina’s average rent jumped 43% between 2006 and
2010. Rent on a one-bedroom apartment increased 6.5%
monthly between 2010 and 2011 while the number of
rental apartments fell by 260, pushing the city’s rental
vacancy rate to the lowest in Canada. Correspondingly,
the homeless rate soared. Aside from the hidden homeless,
3,400 people registered for one or more of Regina’s
homeless shelter services in 2010, a 44.5% increase since
2006. (F. Stratton, March 2012. Making Peace Vigil:
Standing up for peace).
40 The Conference Board of Canada (2009). A Report Card
on Canada, Society, Child Poverty
41 UNICEF Canada (2012). Poverty … the One Line we want
our kids to cross. UNICEF Report Card 10: Measuring
Child Poverty. Canadian Companion, 2. <unicef.ca/
IRC10>
42 P. Endelman (July 27, 2012). Poverty in America: Why
can’t we end it? The NY Times Sunday Review.
29 Saskatchewan’s hourly minimum wage remained at $9.25
throughout 2010 — see July 2010 CBC News http://www.
cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/07/30/
sk-minimum-wage-10730.html. As of November 2012,
it was $9.50, the lowest in Canada, and set to increase to
$10 on December 1, 2012 — CBC News Sept 2012 http://
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-sminimum-wage-lowest-in-country-1.1160548
43 Canadian Index of Wellbeing (2012). How are Canadians
Really Doing?; R.Wilkinson & K. Pickett (2009). The
spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone.
44 The sum of market income (wages and salaries) and
government transfers, before federal and provincial
income taxes and excluding investments and assets.
30 For 2010 Low Income Measures (LIMS) by household
size, see page 9 of this report.
45 OECD (2011). An Overview of Growing Income
Inequalities in OECD Countries: Main Findings, 40-41.
http://www.oecd.org/els/socialpoliciesanddata/49499779.
pdf
31 Based on Regina’s average monthly apartment rent of
$800 in 2010. CMHC (Fall 2010). Housing Market
Information: Rental Market Report. Regina CMA. http://
www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/esub/64431/64431_2010_
A01.pdf?lang=en
46 A. Honneth (2007). Disrespect: The Normative
Foundations of Critical Theory. Cambridge, UK.
32 For instance, Living Wage Employers: Investing in the
long-term prosperity of our community. http://www.
lwemployers.ca/ For a living wage calculation guide, see
the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives at http://www.
policyalternatives.ca/livingwage2012
47 Statistics Canada (2010). Survey of Labour and Income
Dynamics: 2008 Survey Overview “New approaches to
low income.” Catalogue No. 75F0011X, http://www.
statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0011x/75f0011x2010001-eng.htm
Accessed November 17, 2010.
33 Statistics Canada (2012). Income of Canadians, 2010.
48 UNICEF Canada (2012). Poverty … the One Line we want
our kids to cross. UNICEF Report Card 10: Measuring
Child Poverty, Canadian Companion, 5; UNICEF (2012),
Measuring Child Poverty: New League tables of child
poverty in the world’s rich countries. Innocenti Research
Centre Report Card 10, 11-13.
34 2010 Low Income Cut-off Before Tax (LICO-BT)
indicator.
35 As per conversation with G. Hunter, professor of social
work, University of Regina, November 2012.
49 Statistics Canada LICOs (1992-2011). http://www.statcan.
gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/2012002/tbl/tbl02-eng.htm
36 UNICEF Canada (2012). Poverty… The One Line we want
our kids to cross. UNICEF Report Card 10: Measuring
Child Poverty. Canadian Companion, 2-4. <unicef.ca/IRC
10> See also D. Broad (02/ 04/ 2012). Canada’s Austerity
Budget Wonderland. In MRZine.
50 J. Kolkman (2011). Issue Update: The Market Basket
Measure — Rebased or Debased? Edmonton Social
Planning Council. http://www.edmontonsocialplanning.ca/
content/view/1002/1002; See also M. Hatfield, W. Pyper
& B. Gustajtis (2010). First Comprehensive Review of
the Market Basket Measure of Low Income: Final Report,
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada,
Ottawa.
37 UNICEF (2012). Measuring Child Poverty: New league
tables of child poverty in the world’s rich centres.
Innocenti Research Centre Report Card 10, Florence, Italy,
11. (Rankings are based on 2009 national data and do not
reflect the full impact of the recession.)
38 P. Edelman (2012). So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to
End Poverty in America. New York: The New Press.
11
Acknowledgements
This year’s summary of Saskatchewan poverty includes some reviews from the previous
report, Child and Family Poverty in Saskatchewan: November 2010, coauthored
with Paul Gingrich. For national and provincial child and family poverty reports visit
Campaign 2000 at <www.campaign2000.ca> Thanks to Campaign 2000, the Edmonton
Social Planning Council, the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives (CCPA), First Call:
BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, and the Social Planning and Research Council
of BC (SPARC) for data support. Thanks also to Garson Hunter for comments.
Contact
Fiona Douglas
Research Coordinator
Social Policy Research Unit (SPR)
Faculty of Social Work
University of Regina
[email protected]
November 2012
12