Canada’s top one per cent of earners took home 10.6 per cent of all income in the country in 2011, while the top half of earners took home 83 per cent of all the money earned, new data from StatsCan shows.

The statistical agency’s report on high-income earners noted there was no change, nationally, in the concentration of income from the previous year. Alberta and Newfoundland were the only provinces where high-income earners increased their share of income. The share going to the top one per cent fell in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, StatsCan said.

StatsCan’s data shows some large differences in the degree of income inequality between provinces, with the Maritime provinces registering the lowest concentrations of income among high earners, while the country’s economic powerhouses — Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia — registered the highest.

The share of income going to the top one per cent in Alberta was nearly 17 per cent, compared to around 12 per cent in Ontario and around 5 per cent in the Maritime provinces.

Oil money seems to be a factor in tilting the scales in favour of high earners,” writes David Parkinson at the Globe and Mail’s Economy Lab.

Story continues below slideshow

Loading Slideshow...
  • (MOST EQUAL) P.E.I.: 17.5%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: n/a Source: StatsCan

  • New Brunswick: 21.7%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 4.5% Source: StatsCan

  • Nova Scotia: 24.6%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 5.2% Source: StatsCan

  • Quebec: 25.9%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 7.5% Source: StatsCan

  • Manitoba: 26%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 6.3% Source: StatsCan

  • Newfoundland: 28%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 5.2% Source: StatsCan

  • Saskatchewan: 32.8%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 7.3% Source: StatsCan

  • British Columbia: 34.1%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 9.9% Source: StatsCan

  • Canada nationwide: 35%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 10.6% Source: StatsCan

  • Ontario: 38.2%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 12.1% Source: StatsCan

  • Alberta: 48.9%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 16.6% Source: StatsCan

  • The Territories: 49.7%

    Percentage of income going to the top 10 per cent of earners. Top one per cent's share: 4.8% Source: StatsCan Pictured: Iqaluit, Baffin Island, Nunavut

  • ALSO ON HUFFPOST: COUNTRIES DOING THE LEAST TO REDUCE INCOME INEQUALITY

  • Poland: 45% (MOST)

    Poland does the most to reduce income inequality, out of 22 countries surveyed. Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Ireland: 44%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Sweden: 42%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • The Netherlands: 42%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Denmark: 41%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Austria: 40%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Germany: 40%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Finland: 40%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Luxembourg: 38%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Greece: 37%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Slovak Republic: 35%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Norway: 35%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • United Kingdom: 35%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Spain: 33%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Australia: 31%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Canada: 31%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • Israel: 29%

    Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • United States: 26% (LEAST)

    The U.S. does the least to reduce inequality, of 22 countries surveyed. Number represents percentage change in degree of inequality before and after taxes and government transfers. Sources: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country-world">Kevin Drum</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america">Janet Gornick</a>

  • ALSO ON HUFFPOST: OECD COUNTRIES WITH THE WORST INCOME INEQUALITY

  • 10. Japan

    A poor Japanese man pushes a cart in downtown Tokyo on March 2, 2010. (YOSHIKAZU TSUNO/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 9. Greece

    A woman holds a cardboard reading in Greek 'I' m hungry' on March 17, 2011 in central Athens. (LOUISA GOULIAMAKI/AFP/GettyImages)

  • 8. Spain

    A man looks for food in garbage container on January 15, 2013 in Santa Cruz de Tenerife on the Spanish Canary Island of Tenerife. (DESIREE MARTIN/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 7. U.K.

    On the day that Britain officially enters a recession, a homeless man walks the streets on January 23, 2009 in Liverpool, United Kingdom. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

  • 6. Portugal

    Hunter Halder walks toward his bicycle loaded with food that he collect in restaurants on October 21, 2011 in Lisbon. Every night, Hunter Halder, a 60 years old american leaving in Portugal, mounts his bike and toured the restaurants where he gets the food he distributes to the poor of Lisbon, hit hard by the severe economic crisis in Portugal. (PATRICIA DE MELO MOREIRA/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 5. Israel

    Thousands of Israelis gather to protest against the cost of living in Israel, in Jerusalem Saturday, Sept. 3, 2011. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)

  • 4. U.S.

    A man walks down the street collecting cans on October 20, 2011 in Reading, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

  • 3. Turkey

    Children play on the garbage heap in Hasankeyf a small poverty stricken town on the banks of the Tigris on April 10, 2010. (BULENT KILIC/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 2. Mexico

    A family inside their house made with carboard at the edge of a ravine in a poor zone of Mexico city , on July 24, 2012. (OMAR TORRES/AFP/GettyImages)

  • 1. Chile

    Photo: In this June 14, 2012 photo, a man leaves his home in a horse drawn cart to begin his work day of recycling trash in an area where families live in extreme poverty in the Puente Alto sector of Santiago, Chile. (AP Photo/Victor Ruiz Caballero)

Prior to 2010, the share of income taken by Canada’s highest earners declined slightly for several years, but it is still far higher today than it was several decades ago.

The share of income taken by Canada’s one per cent rose from 6.9 per cent in 1983 to a peak of 12.1 per cent in 2006, falling to 10.6 per cent by 2011, according to StatsCan tables. (The data only goes back to 1982.)

The phenomenon is not unique to Canada; most developed nations have seen an increase in the concentration of wealth at the top of the income ladder, with the U.S. leading the pack, over the past several decades.

Observers have pointed to automation in many industries and the offshoring of jobs to cheap-labour countries as two explanations for the phenomenon. Others argue that tax codes have become more favourable to corporations and the wealthy, meaning less redistribution to low-income earners.

Certainly tax codes have a major role to play.

A recent analysis of income inequality data found that Canada is among the developed countries that do the least to reduce inequality through taxes and transfer payments.

On a ranking of pre-tax, pre-transfer incomes, Canada ranked in the middle of the pack among developed nations when it came to inequality. But when countries were ranked according to after-tax-, after-transfer incomes, Canada ranked as the fourth-most unequal country, after the U.S., Israel and the U.K.