Poverty and Aboriginal Peoples

Poverty has many proportions- measurable deficiency (food, shelter, sanitation, and safe drinking water) social exclusion, lack of education, high unemployment and low income. Each of these factors diminishes opportunities, limits choices, undermines hope and threatens health.  Poverty is a burden to certain groups in society such as women, children, ethnic and minority and the disabled (National Collaborating Centre For Aboriginal Health, 2009-2010, p. 1). Poverty is measured according to the “Low-Income-Cut-off” or the income which a family is likely to spend 20% more of its income on basic necessities than the average family. Poverty can be defined and measured in both absolute and relative terms for Aboriginal people who experience poor and unequal living conditions on a national or global scale (National Collaborating Centre For Aboriginal Health, 2009-2010, p. 2). Aboriginal’s health mirrors that of the world’s poorest, but is made worse by their social and cultural marginalization.

According to the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples it supported that “Aboriginal people are more dependent on many forms of Social Assistance as a primary source of revenue than the rest of the Canadian inhabitants (RCAP 1996, 168)”. In the year 2000 average income for Aboriginals was $13, 593 compared to average income on non-Aboriginals population of $22, 431. Metis population had the highest average income of Aboriginal groups ($16,347), Indians off reserve ($13, 838 and the Inuit ($13, 700). On reserve Indians had the lowest average incomes (Statistics Canada 2004). In Canada aboriginals have one of the highest rates of poverty than any other collective groups (Hick, 2007, p. 168).

·         69%  percent of Aboriginal people live off reserve

·         50% of all Aboriginal people now live in urban areas

·         33% of Aboriginal children (0-14) compared to 19% of non-Aboriginal children

·         Almost half (46%) of Aboriginal children live with a lone parent

·         Forty percent of off-reserve Aboriginal live in poverty

·         One in every four off-reserve Aboriginal children live in poor housing conditions, compared to 13% of all children in Canada

·         Urban Aboriginal peoples are a high risk group for food insecurity

Funding cuts for Aboriginal language programs, the Friendship Centres, programing dedicated to urban Aboriginal children aged 6-12 were cut by the federal and provincial governments (Hick, 2007, p. 168). More importantly since 1990 we jeopardized longsighted high poverty in Aboriginal neighborhoods throughout Canada’s major cities without investment and partnerships from federal and provincial governments (Hick, 2007, p. 168). In 2001 Aboriginals had an unemployment rate that is over twice as high as the general rate and only earned only two thirds of an average workers wage even though the higher education attainment and participation in the labour market had been achieved.

Rates of poverty for Aboriginal women are more than double that of non-Aboriginal women (National Collaborating Centre For Aboriginal Health, 2009-2010, p. 2). As a result of living under conditions in poverty:

·         More than 100 first Nations communities are currently under boil water advisories and have little or no access to clean water for drinking and sanitation.

·         First Nations suffer from third world diseases such as tuberculosis at eight to ten times higher the rate of Canadians in general.

·         Aboriginal people are four times more likely to be experiencing hunger as a direct result of poverty.

Looking at the issue of poverty from a neo-conservative approach it acknowledges a federal responsibility in reducing “inequalities” between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians but their main focus is education, the labor market integration or land claim negotiations, rather than on low income and social conditions. Individuals should be responsible for their own lives and policies that encourage dependency on the state should be avoided. State regulation of capitalism should be kept to a minimum and should not be used to promote anything but economic goals. Analyzing this from socialism approach, social and economic equality is maximized which would be better suited to help eliminate poverty in Canada, private ownership of property is replaced by collective ownership and management. This would help take the focus off of the land claim negotiations and focus on the problem at hand which is relative or absolute poverty.

Thanks Allison

References

http://www.nccah-ccnsa.ca/docs/fact sheets/social determinates/NCCAH_fs_poverty_EN.pdf http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/subject-sujet/theme-theme.action?pid=10000&lang=eng&more=0www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1307458586498/

http://www.edmonton.ca/environmental/capital_city_cleanup/hope-hunter-mural.aspx

Hick, Steven. (2007). Social Welfare in Canada: Understanding Income Security, Second Edition.