Blacklock’s Reporter and the Toronto Sun recently reported how the federal government responded to our June study on poverty and race/ethnicity.
That study by Matthew Lau and David hunt showed that 2.5 million Canadians in poverty happen to be ‘white’ and happen to be the largest number of any cohort in poverty. In a briefing memorandum found by Blacklock’s, the department of Employment and Social Development Canada made the point/argument that others have tried to make: What matters, they argue is (only) the proportion of this or that cohort in poverty (black, First Nations, and so forth).
Actually, both sets of figures matter—percentages and absolute numbers.
Percentages matter because if a cohort, say First Nations, have higher poverty rates, then we know something is going on, and if the reasons for the poverty are diagnosed properly, then proper remedies are possible.
As it happens, indigenous Canadian have lower average education levels relative to the overall Canadian average and lower than, for example, Canadians whose ethnic ancestry is East Asian. Also, a higher proportion of indigenous live in rural areas, most often on a First Nations reserve that is remote and with limited educational and career opportunities.
Also, given how most reserves are collectives with little private property ownership (there are exceptions), wealth creation is hampered because private property has always been the basis of individual and widespread prosperity. There is no substitute for buying a home, or creating a business, and expanding the local economy with both in play.
That matters because then two realistic remedies are possible: the more indigenous Canadians who seek higher education levels and who move to the city (where education and employment opportunities are more plentiful relative to rural areas, and where private property exists), the greater the income rise including the escape from poverty.
Also, we know from Statistics Canada data that when apple-apple comparisons are made, indigenous Canadians who have a bachelor’s degree or higher and work full-year, full-time, show nearly the same income as non-indigenous Canadians, or even higher, depending on the degree. In other words, the cause of average differences between cohorts (indigenous and non-indigenous) is due to education and hours worked in a year—and not racism.
That is fundamentally positive because it means indigenous Canadians need not wait for the last bigoted person to disappear in order to achieve parity and prosperity with other Canadians.
But that of course cuts across the claim that racism (personal, or alleged ‘systemic’) explains most or all differences in outcomes between groups, and that government must mandate new discrimination to somehow remedy the assumed effects of past or present discrimination.
Which is where the Lau and Hunt report on race and poverty matters, including absolute numbers. Those matter because, as the authors make clear, first, awarding jobs and grants based on unchangeable characteristics–which governments, corporations, and universities do in droves–is illiberal and anti-individual; and second, it’s a mistake to assume racism is all-causal or mostly causal to outcomes in modern democracies.
That racism claim is problematic because education, time in a country (for immigrants), language skills, family dynamics, culture and even geography matter to outcomes—usually much more than racism. Or as per the example of indigenous Canadians, it’s clear that lower average education levels and a far higher proportion of that cohort in rural areas (often remote reserves where wealth creation is a challenge) explains the income divergence much more than easy accusations of racism of any variety.
More generally, anti-poverty policy must include and remember the cliché that the best anti-poverty program is a job. Thus, it is a mistake to deny people jobs based on unchangeable characteristics—skin colour, gender, “settler” and so forth, just as it was wrong pre-1960s to discriminate based on such factors for different reasons (actual racism from the majority then).
The better policy for every Canadian is to emphasize opportunity for all, regardless of ‘race,’ colour, ethnicity, origin and other unchangeable characteristics. And that’s what our June study, “Poverty and Race in Canada: Facts about Race, Discrimination, and the Poor,” recommended.
Mark Milke is the founder and president of the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and the editor of The 1867 Project: Why Canada Should Be Cherished — Not Cancelled.
Like our work? Think more Canadians should see the facts? Please consider making a donation to the Aristotle Foundation.
The logo and text are signs that each alone and in combination are being used as unregistered trademarks owned by the Aristotle Foundation. All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
are signs that are each alone and in combination are being used as unregistered trademarks owned by the Aristotle Foundation. All rights reserved.