Talk:Poverty in Canada

message: If the wikipedia minions are done with their version of reality, I will report my own.  In the past, I've commented on the homelessness problem in Canada, having had the misfortune of being homeless in toronto myself, and you can read this here: Seaton House Controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.62.92 (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shelter System Omission

message: "According to Statistics Canada, recent increases in Canadian low-income rates are associated with the arrival of new immigrants, which has more than offset the decline in low-income rates of Canadian born residents."
This statement is misleading. Immigrants are not increasing low-income rates for everyone, they are just experiencing lower income rates themselves. I have re-worded this to clarify.
"Debating relative versus absolute measures"
The debate, or difference, between absolute and relative measures is captured accurately in the Measuring poverty Wikipedia entry. It does greater justice to the debate as a whole, by providing more context and information. The concerns raised by both sides in the Canadian debate are better explained in this entry. That is why I have removed this section of the article.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mft1 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Deletions

message: Sourced from: 
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=fb622996-c92f-4f94-8cfa-6601e2b3dda6&k=10588
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/06/16/taxfreedomday.html
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13957&Itemid=86
http://www.ontariohomeschool.org/fraserstudysummaries.html
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=8c492527-8a82-40b2-9d51-30bb25a92802
Mft1 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraser Institute is conservative and libertarian

message: I do not deny that religious organizations perform charity work. The paragraph clearly identifies that both religious and non-denominational (i.e. non-religious) organizations perform this kind of work. Both of these are forms of private charity. Mft1 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Charity Paragraph

message: The Fraser Institute is repeatedly used as statistical reference in this article. 
The Fraser institute is contolled by american  business interests and is widely considered by educated canadians to be a right wing media manipulation tool funded by american interests for the purpose of representing right wing bias in the news through illegitimately generated "factoids" and surveys. Any reference to the Fraser institute in this article will cause it's truth to be questioned by a great many canadians.
Chris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.29.108 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, only one metric, the Basic Needs Poverty Measure, is referenced.  Statistics Canada has openly abdicated on this topic so we are not left with much choice. The Fraser Institute measure is the only Canadian metric explicitly designed for the purpose of being a poverty metric. I have re-read the Fraser Institute Wikipedia article and, as written, it is not entirely consistent with your views. Your opinions on the Fraser Institute would carry more weight if they were reflected in the main article on the Institute, rather than it just reflecting your personal opinion. I would also point out that criticism of the Fraser Institute consistent with your view is noted in this section: Poverty_in_Canada#Debating_relative_versus_absolute_measures . Regards, Deet (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, they are the only organization in the world that has explicitly created a poverty measure for Canada. Given the topic of the article that does buy them some special mention perhaps beyond their normal status. If you have additional points with references, feel free to add content in the Poverty_in_Canada#Debating_relative_versus_absolute_measures section. Deet (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It is clearly labeled as a conservative think tank which is code for ignore for all those who dislike such organizations. Actually, this point itself shows a bias that is unacceptable.  First that all things American-controlled are bad (which does not even seem to be the case according to the main Fraser Institute article).  The key internet computers are all American controlled (ICANN), but that doesn't seem to deter you from using it. Second, the bias that right of centre organizations are inherently unreliable.  I personally think the Basic Needs measure is the closest thing to what average Canadians on the street generally think of as a definition of poverty (i.e., not being able to afford food & shelter) and that all the other measures are so loosely defined as to be nowhere near what Canadians think of when you say the word "poverty". Wikipedia is not censored, so the best approach is to label them the source for what it is and let people make up their own minds. Deet (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraser Institute repeatedly used as statistical reference. Fraser institute is contolled by american  business interests 

message: Calling this foundation non-partisan doesn't excuse them using exaggerated numbers.  Many of these organizations need large numbers to justify their existence with respect to their social justice mandate.  Let's review the facts:
1. LICO is not a poverty rate in my opinion, but let's ignore that and assume it is for a moment...
2. The CIA says it is results in a high number compared to normal poverty rates...
3. The after-tax prevalence of children under 18 in Canada under the LICO measure is 760,000 
4. Even the NDP acknowledges there is not 1.6 million children living in poverty (although they round up to 800,000) 
5. LICO is a relative income measure which we should be definition not expect to change much over time.
I am not trying to censor the discussion, but we can't print just any old bumpf just because the papers are lazy and quote these press releases without any scrutiny.  There is no way we can give this organization a free ride in Wikipedia.  I went to their website and I can't even locate the main study-- just their "News Release and Backgrounder" which all the sensational highlights but no real information. We really need to stick to hard facts and not this unsubstantiated fringe stuff. Deet (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to remove it, if you can prove the inaccuracy. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure if it's proof or not, but I'm just pointing out that its a number that is twice as high as any other I've seen, and some have offered that the previous high water marks were high in the first place. I'm just very uncomfortable with their figures and I'm not getting any more comfort from their website.  If at some point we can figure out their measure with any sort of insight, then perhaps we can add a section on it at some point. But for now I will respectfully remove it. Deet (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Community Foundations of Canada

message: This article is right wing biased, it sources the Fraser Institute for alot of the statistics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightWingLies (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right wing biased 

message: There are a lot of Conference Board sentences but very few references. Most seem to reference Statistics Canada. The Conference Board is not on par with organizations such as the OECD and shouldn't be referenced together just because they have a similar view. There should also be far more emphasis on the Market Basket Measure and much less on relative measures, which really don't make much sense, especially at the beginning of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.93.222 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference Board Bias 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Poverty in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090622144148/http://www.hrle.gov.nl.ca:80/hrle/poverty/consultations/understanding.html to http://www.hrle.gov.nl.ca/hrle/poverty/consultations/understanding.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
  ....  PKT(alk) 15:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016012/98-200-x2016012-eng.cfm Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children living in low‑income households

message: The content of this article uses data that is at least 5 years old, ( some much earlier!) and the sources of evidence appear unusual, that is, unnecessarily idiosyncratic. The tone of the article is biased, implying resistance on the part of Canadian governments to acknowledge the existence of a “poverty line” and resistance of Statistics Canada to provide poverty data in the absence of federal government defining the poverty line. “Poverty line” is an established economic concept and is not well explained in this article, either in general or in the Canadian context.  Jrwthomson (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date stats and unbalanced discussion. 

message: These are the headings used in a 2016 Employment and Social Development Canada Backgrounder that could be potentially used in this article.
* Measures of low income in Canada
* Situation of low income over time
* Canadians living in persistent poverty
* Characteristics of Canadians more likely to be living in low income
** Children
** Vulnerable groups
*** Indigenous people
*** People with disabilities
*** Recent immigrants
*** Single parents
*** Unattached individuals aged 45–64
* The working poor
* Upward income mobility
* Poverty beyond income in everyday life
** Housing
** Food insecurity
** Health
** Crime  
Oceanflynn (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sections and subsections 

message: The article Child poverty in Canada was created as a fork from this article Poverty in Canada by copying content from Poverty in Canada as it stood on 8 August 2022 I created both the section "Child poverty in Canada" and the subsection "Indigenous child poverty in Canada on 6 August 2022. The content in new article Child poverty in Canada will be more detailed than that in the sections and subsections in Poverty in Canada article. Other editors are encouraged to help improve this new article. Thank you in advance.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child poverty in Canada 

message: People on odsp cant even afford rent. Single parent with 3 children pay around 300 plus utilities. Canad is killing their people and allowing major serious poverty!!.
Drop rent prices in half and cap them, what good is building more housing when cant afford to rent them, oh!, Canadians can go on waiting list of affordable housing after New Comers get theirs first.
Also!,  jobs Canadians can't even get jobs as our Government pays portion of New Comers wages, but not for Canadians, Obviously employers will take the cost relief. Look aound people!. They put a limit on employment status of white people being employed at a business Really!Talk about racism and Discriminating a now minority of Canada. 2607:FEA8:2882:4E00:D995:3DA1:B9B5:DE6C (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty  

message: Previou topic add by me in previous topic add stated by accident 300 month definate correction to 3000, London Ontario.
Our Government is turning its people into homeless and starvation!!! 2607:FEA8:2882:4E00:D995:3DA1:B9B5:DE6C (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic Correction inPrevious :  Poverty 3000 ment to say plus utilities definately not 300 Sorry This is all in London Ontario including my above topic submitted