The nearly 21 million individuals who were income recipients in 1995 had an average total income from all sources of $25,196, down 6% from 1990 after adjustment for inflation. This decrease wiped out gains during the second half of the 1980s. As a result, average total income in 1995 was almost identical to that in 1985, and slightly below the level of 1980.

The average income of men ($31,117) was 7.8% below their average income in 1990. Between 1985 and 1990, men were just able to recoup the income losses suffered in the recession of the early 1980s. As a result, average income of men in 1995 was 7.6% below their income in 1980.

The number of female income recipients has been increasing over the years. In 1995, women accounted for nearly half (49.7%) of all income recipients. In 1995, they had an average income of $19,208, down 2.1% from 1990.

Despite the recession of the early 1980s, women had on average increased their purchasing power by almost 5% between 1980 and 1985, and had gained another 12% between 1985 and 1990. Thus, unlike men whose average income declined 7.6% between 1980 and 1995, the average income of women increased 15% during the same period.

Employment income, or earnings, continued to decline as a proportion of total income between 1990 and 1995, even though it remained by far the largest component of total income. In 1995, employment income accounted for 75 cents of every dollar of income, down from 78 cents in 1990 and 86 cents in 1970.

The share of government transfer payments, such as old-age pensions, unemployment insurance benefits, child tax benefits and Goods and Services Tax credits, doubled over the past quarter century. In 1995, these transfers contributed 14 cents of every dollar of income, compared with 11 cents in 1990 and less than seven cents in 1970.

This increase resulted from changes in both social security programs and the demographic composition of the population. Between 1971 and 1996, the total population increased 34%, while the population aged 65 and older, which received many of these transfer payments, more than doubled. (Annual estimates from other sources show a decline in aggregate government transfer payments between 1994 and 1995, but the 1995 aggregate remained higher than 1990.)

Pensions to the elderly accounted for half of all government transfers to individuals. In 1990, an almost identical number of people (2.8 million) received Old Age Security pensions and Canada/Quebec Pensions. By 1995, while the number of OAS recipients increased by 320,000 or 11.5%, the number of recipients of C/QPP benefits increased by over one million persons, or 38.7%. The number of recipients of unemployment insurance benefits declined 6%, while the number of recipients of child tax benefits declined 8%.

The remaining 11 cents of every dollar of income in 1995 came from sources such as investment income and retirement pensions. This amount increased from about seven cents in 1970 to 11 cents in 1990, and did not change between 1990 and 1995.

The main source of income for most individuals and families is employment income, which includes wages and salaries, and net income from farm and non-farm self-employment.

In 1995, just under 15 million Canadians reported employment income, an increase of less than 100,000 between 1990 and 1995.

Between 1990 and 1995, the overall average employment income of individuals declined 2.6% to $26,474, the result of the downturn in the business cycle early in the decade. The number of men who reported earnings declined by 53,000 to about 8.0 million, while the number of women increased by about 144,000 to 6.9 million.

During this five-year period, employment grew at an annual rate of only 0.5%. Significant changes have occurred in the Canadian economy in more recent years. Employment grew by over 1% in both 1996 and 1997. The average earnings of individuals, after adjustment for inflation, increased 2.2% in 1996, the latest year for which annual (non-census) data are available.

Since 1980, average employment income has fluctuated. The recession in the early 1980s resulted in a 2.7% decline between 1980 and 1985. Average individual earnings then rebounded during the recovery between 1985 and 1990, increasing 4.3%. Although the average in 1995 was slightly higher than in 1985, it was 1.2% below the level in 1980.

Census data allow a detailed examination of several factors that have an impact on the level of employment income for individuals.

The following sections of this report provide information about people who reported employment income, relating it to their age, sex, education and the time they spent at work.

In addition, this report examines earnings of several sub-groups of the population – youth, people in high- and low-earning occupations, immigrants, the visible minority population and Aboriginal people.

In 1995, men reported average earnings of $31,917, down 5% from a high of $33,458 in 1980. Average earnings of men fluctuated with the economic cycles during this 15-year period. In contrast, earnings of women steadily increased. Women reported earnings of $20,162 in 1995, up 16% from $17,377 in 1980.

There is a close relationship between time spent on work and the amount of earnings. Individuals who worked for the full year in 1995 on a full-time basis had average employment income of $37,556, two-and-a-half times higher than all other earners. (A full year is defined as 49 weeks or more, and full time is defined as 30 hours or more per week.)

In 1995, men who worked full year, full time reported earnings of $42,488, down 1.6% from 1990. Those who worked part year, or part time, had earnings of $18,422, down 6.8% during this five-year period. In contrast, the average earnings of women who worked full year, full time, increased 3.6% to $30,130. Earnings of women who worked part year or part time also increased, 1.2% to $12,586.

On the whole, about one-half of all earners worked full year, full time in 1995. Among men, the proportion of full-year, full-time workers declined from 58% in 1990 to 56% in 1995. Among women, it declined from 44% to 43%. Without these changes in the amount of time worked, average earnings of men would have declined 2.9% instead of 4.2%, and those of women would have increased 2.8% instead of 1.7%.

Between 1980 and 1995, the average earnings of full-year, full-time working men changed little. However, those of part-year or part-time working men declined 14% during this 15-year period. In comparison, average earnings of women increased 11% for full-year, full-time working earners, and by 14% for other female earners.

During this 15-year period, the intensity of work in terms of weeks and hours declined in the case of male part-year or part-time earners, and increased in the case of female earners. This accounts in large measure for the differences in changes in the earnings of men and women between 1980 and 1995.

As a result of these changes, the female-to-male earnings ratio has risen steadily during the past 15 years. In 1995, women who worked full year, full time, earned on average 71 cents for each dollar earned by their male counterparts, compared with 67 cents in 1990, 66 cents in 1985 and 64 cents in 1980. These are overall comparisons, however. A more refined comparison, taking education, work experience, occupation and other factors into account, has to wait for further analysis.

In general, individual earnings increase with age and work experience. In 1995, average earnings were lowest at $8,199 for individuals aged 15 to 24. They increased to a peak of $35,317 for those aged 45 to 54, then declined to $20,446 for those aged 65 and over. The nature of the relationship of age to earnings was consistent for both men and women.

Between 1990 and 1995, average earnings declined in all age groups. The largest decline, almost 20%, occurred among the youngest group, those aged 15 to 24, the smallest decline, 1.4%, among those aged 45 to 54. Although the overall number of earners was virtually unchanged between 1990 and 1995, there were significant changes within the age distribution of earners. These differed from shifts occurring in the distribution of overall population. The general ageing of the population is increasing the proportion of the retired and elderly. In contrast, baby boomers are entering the peak-earnings age groups and increasing the proportions of these groups among earners.

Shifts in the age profile of earners mitigated the general drop in earnings between 1990 and 1995. For example, the number of people in the age group with the highest earnings (45 to 54) increased 23% between 1990 and 1995, while the number in the second highest earning group (35 to 44) increased almost 8%. All other things being equal, without these demographic shifts, overall average earnings would have declined almost 6% between 1990 and 1995, instead of the actual 2.6% decline.

Education, as well as age and experience, has a major bearing on earnings. The negative impact of the recession of the early 1990s was considerably offset by a more mature and better-educated work force.

In 1995, individuals with a university degree reported average earnings of $42,054, compared with about $19,000 for those who had not graduated from high school. High school graduates reported average earnings of $22,846.

However, average earnings declined in all education categories between 1990 and 1995. People with less than Grade 9 education incurred the largest decline in average earnings, 8.2%. Average earnings for high school graduates declined 3.4%, while those for university graduates declined 5.8%.

Shifts in the education profile of earners tempered the decline in overall earnings among the various groups. The number of earners with a university degree increased 20% between 1990 and 1995, while the number with some university education increased 7%. At the same time, the number of people with lower levels of education, and consequently in lower earnings groups, declined. These shifts occurred along with the significant increase in the number of people aged 35 to 54 who recorded the highest earnings.

All other things being equal, without these changes in the age and education profiles of earners between 1990 and 1995, average earnings would have declined by about $2,200, instead of $700.

Average earnings of young people aged 15 to 24 have been declining since 1980. This section examines some of the responsible factors.

The impact of changes in overall economic activity on youth differs from that on other age groups. For example, during good economic times, job opportunities for young people grow, but their earnings do not appear to grow at the same rate as those of experienced workers. For example, during the periods 1970 to 1980 and 1985 to 1990, real average earnings of young people increased, but at a rate slightly lower than the overall rate of increase.

During recessionary periods, all earnings generally fall or stagnate. In the case of young people, there is a dual impact. Their chances of full-time employment fade quickly. In addition, they may be limited to low paying jobs. Consequently during the tough economic times between 1980 and 1985, and in the early 1990s, their average earnings fell about 20%, much more than the overall rate of decline.

In 1970 and 1980, the average earnings of young people aged 15 to 24 were around one-half of the overall national average. By 1995, they had declined to 31%. As a result of these changes, the position of young earners relative to other age groups consistently deteriorated between 1980 and 1995.

Increasingly, young people have been working only part of the year, or part time, because they are staying in school longer. In 1971, about 23% of individuals aged 15 to 24 had post-secondary education including a university degree. By 1996, this proportion had reached 39%.

Work patterns have also been changing for young people aged 15 to 24. In 1970, 29% of young earners worked full year, full time. By 1995, this proportion had declined to only 16%. Had this decline not occurred, the earnings of young people would have been $10,600 or 30% higher than their actual earnings in 1995.

In 1995, over 2.8 million earners were immigrants, accounting for 19% of all people with employment income. Their earnings varied significantly by their period of immigration to Canada. About 21% of them immigrated before 1966. Another 28% came between 1966 and 1975.

The average earnings in 1995 of both these groups of immigrants were more than 30% above the average earnings of non-immigrants. The average for immigrants who arrived between 1976 and 1985 was 1% higher. In addition to any other factors, experience in the Canadian labour market is clearly a substantial benefit to earlier groups of immigrants.

However, more recent immigrants had significantly lower earnings. The average employment income of immigrants who came between 1986 and 1990 was $21,538, or 18% lower than that of non-immigrants. The average employment income of the most recent immigrants, those who came after 1990, was $16,673, or 36% lower than the average earnings of non-immigrants.

In spite of the large variation in the average earnings of immigrants by period of immigration, the much higher weight of pre-1976 immigrants in their distribution pushed their overall average earnings to $27,684, which was 5.7% higher than for non-immigrants ($26,193). The difference in the overall average earnings of immigrants and non-immigrants stems largely from two factors.

Immigrant earners were generally older. Their median age was about 42 years, compared with 36 for the Canadian-born population. There were proportionally fewer immigrant earners in the young age groups where employment income was lower, and more in older age groups which tended to have higher earnings. In addition, higher proportions of immigrant earners had completed university.

Without this age and education advantage, the overall average employment income of immigrants would have been about $3,600, or 8.3% lower, than the average for non-immigrants, instead of 5.7% higher.

About 10% of all people who reported employment income in 1995, or about 1.5 million individuals, were members of the visible minority population. They reported average employment income of $22,498, about 15% below the national average.

Four out of every five of these individuals were immigrants, almost all of whom arrived after 1965. Like other immigrants, their earnings varied by period of immigration. However, except for the immigrants who arrived between 1956 and 1965, average employment income of visible minority earners within each period of immigration was lower than that of other immigrants. The differences ranged from about 2% for 1966-1975 immigrants to 28% for most recent immigrants.

In 1995, just over 253,000 earners in the visible minority population reported that they were Canadian-born. Their average employment income of $18,565 was almost 30% below the level reported by all other earners who were Canadian-born. This was primarily due to major differences in the characteristics of the two groups.

Although the educational attainment of the visible minority earners was higher than other Canadian-born earners, there were significant differences in their age distributions. The median age of the visible minority group was lower by more than 11 years. Nearly 45% of the earners in the Canadian-born visible minority population were under the age of 25, compared with 18% for other Canadian-born earners. Similarly, less than 10% were between 45 and 64 in the Canadian-born visible minority population, compared with 25% for other Canadian-born earners.

In addition, only one-third of the individuals in the Canadian-born visible minority population worked full year, full time in 1995, compared with one-half of other Canadian-born earners. Compensating for these differences between visible minority and other Canadian-born earners reduces the gap between their average employment income from about 30% to 4%.

About 298,200 Aboriginal people reported employment income in 1995, accounting for 57% of the total Aboriginal population aged 15 and over. In comparison, 66% of the general population aged 15 and over reported employment income.

In 1995, average employment income of Aboriginal people at $17,382 was 34% below the national average of $26,474. This was due in large measure to differences between Aboriginal earners and other earners relating to factors that affect the amount of earnings.

There was a predominance of part-year, or part-time, work among Aboriginal people. In 1995, just over one-third of Aboriginal people who reported employment income worked for the full year on a full-time basis, compared with one-half of the total population. However, the average employment income of Aboriginal people was significantly lower than the national average regardless of whether they worked full year, full time in 1995.

Average earnings of full-year, full-time Aboriginal workers ($29,684) were 21% lower than the national average, while those of other Aboriginal earners ($10,866) were 29% lower.

The average earnings of Aboriginal people were lower in every age and education category. In addition, they had significantly larger concentrations in the age groups and education levels that are associated with lower earnings. Two out of three Aboriginal earners were under the age of 35, compared with two out of five nationally. Similarly, about 40% of Aboriginal earners had not completed high school, compared with only about 25% of earners in the general population.

On the whole, these differences in work patterns, age and education accounted for about three-fifths of the total difference between the average earnings of the Aboriginal population and the national average.

One of every four Aboriginal earners lived on a reserve. Less than one-third (31%) of these individuals worked full year, full time, in 1995. This had a significant impact on the overall employment income of Aboriginal earners on reserves. Aboriginal people who lived on a reserve reported average employment income of $14,055, which was 24% below the $18,463 reported by those who lived off reserve.

In 1995, more than 7.5 million Canadians worked full year, full time, in 514 occupations for which employment income data are available. Of these, 368,325 or 5% worked in the 25 highest paying occupations. They had an average employment income of $80,206 in 1995, compared with the overall average of $26,474.

Earnings in these occupations varied considerably. Judges recorded the highest average earnings ($126,246), followed by specialist physicians and surgeons ($123,976), general practitioners and family physicians ($107,620) and dentists ($102,433). Average employment incomes in just over half of these 25 occupations in 1995 were under $70,000.

Security agents, investment dealers and traders experienced the largest increases, both in numbers (+33%) and average earnings (+23%) between 1990 and 1995. The number of dentists increased 21%, but their average earnings declined 2%. The number of commissioned police officers increased 41%, while their average employment income declined 6%.

Women represented 22% of all earners in the 25 highest paying occupations in 1995, compared with 17% in 1990. Between 1990 and 1995, the number of men in these occupations declined almost 5%, while the number of women increased 26%. The increase among women was spread across the 25 occupations.

The largest growth occurred in two occupation groups: lawyers and Quebec notaries, and elementary and secondary school principals and administrators. In each group, the number of women who worked full year, full time, increased by 3,000 between 1990 and 1995. The number of female dentists nearly doubled from 800 in 1990 to 1,500 in 1995.

About 568,000 individuals worked full year, full time, in the 25 lowest paying occupations. As in 1990, the majority, about three out of every five earners, were women. Between 1990 and 1995, the number of workers in these occupations declined by 10,000.

Average employment income in these 25 occupations ranged from $12,713 to $20,001. The overall average was $17,729. Between 1990 and 1995, the average earnings of men in these occupations declined 12% to $20,238, while those of women declined 5% to $16,564.

The total income of a census family is the sum of the total incomes of all members of that family aged 15 and over received during the calendar year preceding the census. Income includes wages and salaries, income from farm and non-farm self-employment, government transfer payments, investment income, retirement pensions and other money income.

The 1996 Census measured levels of family income for the year 1995. According to the data, average family income that year was $54,583, a 4.8% decline from 1990 after adjusting for inflation. Since 1980, family income has fluctuated in much the same manner as employment income. It declined between 1980 and 1985, and increased significantly during the recovery of the late 1980s. Overall, the level in 1995 was 2.8% higher than in 1980.

By far the largest proportion of Canadians lived in 6.7 million husband-and-wife census families in 1995. These reported an average family income of $58,763, down 4% from 1990.

In 14% of these husband-and-wife families, at least one child in addition to the two spouses reported employment income. Although the average income of these families declined 2.3% during the five-year period, they still enjoyed the highest average family income ($85,501) in 1995.

Both spouses reported employment income in an additional 46% of all husband-and-wife families. With an average income of $65,561, these dual-earner families experienced little change in their purchasing power between 1990 and 1995.

Another way to analyse changes in the income of husband-and-wife families is to examine the earnings status of wives. In this respect, the average income of the 4.3 million husband-and-wife families in which the wife had employment income was $67,894 in 1995, down 1.9% from 1990. In contrast, the average in the 2.4 million families in which the wife had no earned income was $42,200 in 1995, down 6.9%.

Between 1990 and 1995, average income declined 8% among lone-parent families, twice the decline of 4% among husband-and-wife families. Male lone-parent families incurred the largest decline, 10%, to $40,974.

Among female lone-parent families, which accounted for four out of five lone-parent families, average income declined 6.5% to $27,721 in 1995. Their average income in 1995 remained at about one-half of the overall average family income.

Demographic shifts in Canada have been affecting family incomes. On the whole, the number of census families increased 7% between the 1991 and 1996 censuses. However, the rate of increase in lone-parent families (+19%) was almost four times the rate of increase in husband-wife families (+5%).

These changes in the distribution of families by structure accounted for about one-fifth of the overall decline of 5% between 1990 and 1995 in average family income.

Along with these structural shifts, there were also changes in the combination of earners within families. For example, in the case of husband-and-wife families, the proportion of families without any earnings increased from 13% in 1990 to 16% in 1995. The proportion of families in which both husband and wife reported employment income declined from 62% to 59%. Meanwhile, the number of husbands without earnings increased 28%, while the number of wives without earnings increased 9%.

Without these changes, the average income of husband-and-wife families would have declined only 1.7%, instead of the actual drop of almost 4%.

In the case of lone-parent families, between 1990 and 1995 the number headed by men increased 16%, compared with a 20% increase among those headed by women.

Declines in the income of both male and female lone-parent families were above average because of disproportionately large growth among those families that did not report any earned income.

Average family income fell in all age groups, the largest decline occurring in cases in which the husband, or in the case of lone-parent families, the parent, was aged 15 to 24. Between 1990 and 1995, the average income of these families declined 21% to $23,115.

Changes in the age distribution of families between 1990 and 1995 favoured a higher overall average family income. During this period, the number of younger families declined considerably. In the age group 15 to 24, the number declined 10%. In the age group 25 to 34, the decline was 11%. However, the number of families in the age group 45 to 54, who reported the highest family income, increased 23%.

Without these changes in family life cycle, overall family incomes would have declined by another percentage point between 1990 and 1995.

Average family income declined between 1990 and 1995 in all census metropolitan areas except two. In Windsor, it increased 5%, and in Victoria, it was virtually the same as in 1990.

The declines ranged from 2% in Saskatoon to 10% in Toronto. Eleven census metropolitan areas registered decreases greater than the national average of 4.8%. In the remaining 12, the declines were below the national average.

The census metropolitan area with the highest average family income in 1995 was Ottawa-Hull. Toronto moved from first to second place. Calgary replaced Oshawa in third place. The census metropolitan areas with the lowest average family income were Chicoutimi-Jonquière, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivières in both 1990 and 1995.

The general decline in incomes between 1990 and 1995 resulted in an increase in the incidence of low income. In 1995, 16% of economic families were below Statistics Canada’s low income cut-offs, up from 13% in 1990. Similarly, 42% of unattached individuals in 1995 were below the cut-offs, compared with 40% in 1990.

While the number of all families increased 6% during this period, the number of low-income families increased 32%. All types of families recorded increases in the incidence of low income between 1990 and 1995.

In 1995, 12% of husband-and-wife families were below the cut-offs, up from 9% five years earlier. Similarly, 48% of lone-parent families headed by women were in a low-income situation, compared with 44% in 1990. The proportion among male lone-parent families increased from 18% to 24% during the same period.

The proportion of unattached men in a low-income situation increased from 34% in 1990 to 39% in 1995. Among unattached women, the increase was from 44% to 45%. The incidence of low income increased in all age groups of unattached individuals, except for those aged 65 and over.

While the total population increased 6% between 1990 and 1995, the low-income population increased 29%. There were 1.2 million more persons below the low income cut-offs in 1995 than in 1990. These developments resulted in a larger proportion of the population in private households with low income – from 16% in 1990 to 20% in 1995.

One in four children under six lived in low-income families in 1995, compared with one in five in 1990. The number of children younger than 15 living in low-income families increased by 321,200, to about 1.3 million in 1995.

At the opposite end of the age scale, the proportion of people aged 70 and over in a low-income situation declined by about two percentage points. Still, one in five seniors had an income below Statistics Canada's low income cut-offs.