Table A.3.1.1
Percentage of the population aged 0 to 4 in low income,Note 1 by type of living arrangement, Canada and provinces, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 to 2010

Warning View the most recent version.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Table A.3.1.1
Percentage of the population aged 0 to 4 in low income, by type of living arrangement, Canada and provinces, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 to 2010
Table summary
This table displays the results of percentage of the population aged 0 to 4 in low income ages 0 to 4, all living arrangements , living with two parents and living with lone parent, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Ages 0 to 4
All living arrangements Living with two parents Living with lone parent
percent
Canada  
1990 16 10 60
1995 19 13 59
2000 16 11 44
2005 13 9 40
2006 12 9 37
2007 10 6 35
2008 11 8 35
2009 11 9 29Note  r: revised
2010 9 7 29
Newfoundland and Labrador  
1990 22 15 67
1995 29 20 68
2000 22 13 55
2005 16 8 38
2006 9Note  r: revised Note F: too unreliable to be published 29Note  r: revised
2007 11Note  r: revised Note F: too unreliable to be published 37
2008 13 Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published
2009 16 15 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2010 13 Note F: too unreliable to be published 24
Prince Edward Island  
1990 8 5 30
1995 11 8 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2000 7 4 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2005 5 4 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2006 5Note  r: revised 1 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2007 5 Note ..: not available for a specific reference period Note F: too unreliable to be published
2008 6 Note ..: not available for a specific reference period Note F: too unreliable to be published
2009 7 Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published
2010 Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published
Nova Scotia  
1990 15 6 62
1995 24 12 69
2000 13 8 42
2005 10 6 36
2006 10Note  r: revised 6 29Note  r: revised
2007 12 9 25
2008 5 0 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2009 9 7 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2010 9 6 Note F: too unreliable to be published
New Brunswick  
1990 15 7 53
1995 23 13 71
2000 9 6 36
2005 14 3 56
2006 14 7Note  r: revised 43Note  r: revised
2007 12 2 46Note  r: revised
2008 3Note  r: revised 1 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2009 4Note  r: revised 0 29Note  r: revised
2010 1 Note ..: not available for a specific reference period Note F: too unreliable to be published
Quebec  
1990 15 9 65
1995 20 14 62
2000 19 13 51
2005 11 9 30
2006 10 6Note  r: revised 39Note  r: revised
2007 8Note  r: revised 6 28
2008 12 8 44
2009 6Note  r: revised 3 33Note  r: revised
2010 7 4 32
Ontario  
1990 14 8 56
1995 17 11 57
2000 15 12 40
2005 11 8 40
2006 12 9 33
2007 11 8 36
2008 10 7 35Note  r: revised
2009 13 10 35
2010 10 7 37
Manitoba  
1990 25 14 76
1995 19 12 65
2000 15 9 60
2005 15 12 32
2006 10Note  r: revised 8Note  r: revised 27Note  r: revised
2007 9 9 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2008 8 8 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2009 10 7 26
2010 12 8 40
Saskatchewan  
1990 19 13 63
1995 27 17 73
2000 15 9 36
2005 17 11 43
2006 21Note  r: revised 14 52Note  r: revised
2007 12 6 48Note  r: revised
2008 14 11 33
2009 11 4 43
2010 11 9 22
Alberta  
1990 19 13 61
1995 20 15 56
2000 13 10 45
2005 12 7 50
2006 12Note  r: revised 9Note  r: revised 38Note  r: revised
2007 9 5 40
2008 10 7 40Note  r: revised
2009 13 12 16
2010 9 8 18
British Columbia  
1990 20 13 59
1995 18 13 49
2000 14 12 39
2005 19 15 42
2006 18 12Note  r: revised 46
2007 10 6 37Note  r: revised
2008 13 12 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2009 15Note  r: revised 16 Note F: too unreliable to be published
2010 10 10 Note F: too unreliable to be published
.. not available for a specific reference period
r revised
F too unreliable to be published
0 true zero or a value rounded to zero
1. Based on after-tax low-income cutoffs (LICOs), which indicate when a family may be in "straitened circumstances." This means that the family is likely to spend 20% more of its net income on basic items such as food, shelter and clothing compared with the average family, which leaves less money available for other expenses such as health, education, transportation and recreation.
Note: For a brief description of this indicator, including the methodology, please see the Handbook for the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program.
Sources: Statistics Canada, Survey of Consumer Finances, 1990 and 1995, and Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, 2000, 2005 to 2010.
Updated December 13, 2012.
Date modified: