Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of March 3, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 10:01 a.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I welcome new and returning members to our first meeting of this session with witnesses.
We have with us this morning, on my left, the very capable deputy chair, Senator Sibbeston, from the Northwest Territories; then Senator Brazeau from Quebec; Senator Lang from the Yukon; Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island; Senator Brown from Alberta; Senator Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia; Senator Peterson from Saskatchewan; and Senator Dyck, also from Saskatchewan.
Today's briefing, colleagues, will be on the topic of the demographic, economic and social portrait of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. We have four witnesses who will help us to elaborate on that theme, and we thank them all for being here. Two of the witnesses come from Statistics Canada: Jane Badets, Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics; and, Cathy Connors, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics.
[Translation]
We would like to welcome the other witnesses, from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs: Mr. Éric Guimond, Senior Research Manager, and Mr. Andrew Beynon, Director General, Research Branch.
After the briefing, senators will have the opportunity to put questions to the witnesses.
[English]
Honourable senators will have the opportunity to ask questions in regard to the witnesses' appearance here today. I now ask the witnesses to make their presentations.
Jane Badets, Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics, Statistics Canada: I thank the chair and the committee for inviting Statistics Canada to present to you today. We would be pleased to answer your questions at the end of the presentation.
In the past year, we have been releasing new data on the situation of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Some of the data is from the 2006 Census. In addition, we have conducted a couple of Aboriginal surveys, namely, the Aboriginal Children's Survey and the Aboriginal People's Survey. We have recently released results from those, and I will be presenting selected results. We have far too much information to present to you even with all this time, so I will try to keep it short and guide you through the slides.
I begin with slide 3 and will talk about how we define the Aboriginal population. Statistics Canada has four concepts for identifying Aboriginal peoples. They relate to specific questions asked on the census questionnaire and in our Aboriginal surveys. One of the concepts is Aboriginal ancestry; another is Aboriginal identity. We ask whether a person is treaty or registered Indian, according to the Indian Act of Canada; and we ask whether a person is a member of an Indian band or First Nation.
The presentation today will focus primarily on the Aboriginal identity population. That includes people who self- identify as Aboriginal persons and are registered Indian or members of an Indian band or First Nation. We provide building blocks, and users of the data can use those different concepts or combination of concepts, depending on their information or program needs.
Starting with the data trends, I will give an overview of what we see from the census over time, and then I will talk a little more about the surveys.
On slide 4, you will see that, in 2006, 1.2 million people reported having an Aboriginal identity compared with 1.7 million who reported Aboriginal ancestry.
As you can see, over time there has been a steady increase in the number of people reporting either Aboriginal ancestry or Aboriginal identity in the census. These increases in recent years can be attributed to demographic factors, such as higher birth rates, or to non-demographic factors. For example, an increasing number of people may decide on the census to self-identify as an Aboriginal person.
We recognize that the Aboriginal population is diverse and that their conditions vary by region and group. In this presentation, we will provide, where possible, group-specific information, and, in particular, I will focus on First Nations, Metis and Inuit.
Slide 5 shows the increase of the different Aboriginal groups between the 2001 Census and 2006 Census. Of the three Aboriginal groups, the largest increase in population between 2001 and 2006 was observed for the Metis, with a growth rate of 33 per cent. The increase in Metis can be attributed to demographic factors but is more likely due to increased numbers self-identifying in the census as Metis.
The second highest growth rate was for the First Nations, or North American Indian, population who did not report as registered Indians. This group grew by 28 per cent. In comparison, the non-Aboriginal population grew at a much slower rate during this five-year period.
In terms of actual population size or population numbers, the First Nations people, or North American Indians, were the largest group, followed by Metis and Inuit.
In the next three slides, I will describe where the different groups were found in terms of where they lived at time of the census. Slide 6 shows that most First Nations people lived in Ontario and the West; however, they made up 3 per cent or less of the populations of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
Slide 7 shows that, like the First Nations population, most of the people identified as Metis lived in the West and in Ontario. As you can see from the graph, the largest Metis population was in Alberta, followed by Ontario and then Manitoba.
Finally, slide 8 shows that in terms of the Inuit population, three quarters, or 78 per cent, lived in one of the four regions within Inuit Nunaat. This is the Inuktitut expression for "Inuit homeland'' and stretches from Labrador to the Northwest Territories.
Turning to the demographic structure on slide 9, I should note that the Aboriginal population is much younger than the non-Aboriginal population. Nearly half of all Aboriginal people were under age 25, compared to about a third of the non-Aboriginal population. The blue bars represent the age structure of the Aboriginal population, and you can see the higher percentages among children and youth. The black lines represent the non-Aboriginal population, and their percentages are more concentrated among adults.
Slide 10 describes what we know from the census in terms of education. From the census, we collect information on levels of schooling. This graph provides an overview of selected educational levels of the total Aboriginal population aged 25 to 64. A considerable gap existed between the proportion of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population with university credentials, 8 per cent versus 23 per cent. About one third of Aboriginal people aged 25 to 64 had less than a high school education, compared with 15 per cent of non-Aboriginal persons. On the other hand, a slightly higher proportion of Aboriginal people had an apprenticeship or trade certificate, compared with the non-Aboriginal population. These numbers can also be examined with each of the specific groups.
Slide 11 shows the employment situation at the time of the 2006 Census. It shows slight gains in the employment rate for all Aboriginal groups, but there remains a gap with the employment rates of non-Aboriginal people. First Nations living on-reserve in the Inuit had the lowest employment rates in 2001 and 2006, compared with the other Aboriginal groups and the non-Aboriginal population.
That provides an overview from the census. I will now discuss Aboriginal surveys, in particular, the Aboriginal Children's Survey and the Aboriginal Peoples Survey.
Slide 13 provides information about the Aboriginal Children's Survey, which was conducted following the 2006 Census. Until then, little data had been available about the health and development of Aboriginal children under the age of 6, and the survey was designed to address this gap. Although the survey was primarily conducted off-reserve and in the North, children living in some First Nations communities in Quebec and the Territories were included.
Slide 14 gives an overview of the Aboriginal Peoples Survey, which was conducted at the same time as the Aboriginal Children's Survey, just following the 2006 Census. The Aboriginal Peoples Survey provides extensive data on Inuit, Metis and off-reserve First Nations children aged 6 to 14, as well as these same groups aged 15 and over, living in urban, rural and northern locations across Canada.
That provides an overview of those two surveys. I will now present some results on Aboriginal children, beginning on slide 15. What do we know about Aboriginal children from the surveys?
Slide 16 shows that, from the census, we learned that First Nations living off-reserve, Metis and Inuit young children — that is, those under the age of 6 — are growing up in families that are unique in many ways from the families of non- Aboriginal children. Young Aboriginal children were more likely than non-Aboriginal children to have young parents, to be part of a large family, to be living in a lone-parent family and to be living with grandparents. You can see on the slide some of the data that supports each of those statements.
Turning to slide 17, in the Aboriginal Children's Survey, parents were asked how often the child spends time with various people in their lives. We see that young First Nations children living off-reserve regularly spend time with not only their immediate family, such as parents, but also with extended family and community members, such as elders. Of note is that 68 per cent of young First Nations children living off-reserve are spending time with their grandparents on a weekly basis, and similar trends were observed for young Metis children.
Slide 18 shows the same results for the young Inuit children. Again, it is clear that Inuit children are spending time with a network of family, extended family and community members. About 7 in 10 Inuit children were also receiving focused attention from grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins at least one a week. We have outlined bars to show that aspect. These were higher proportions than were observed for the young Metis and young off-reserve First Nations children.
Turning to another aspect of the survey in slide 19, parents of off-reserve, young First Nations children were also asked to rate their feelings about their community as a place to raise children in a number of areas, as listed on the slide. The chart shows that young, off-reserve First Nations children, generally speaking, have parents who were satisfied with many aspects of their community as a place to raise children, but they were less satisfied with access to activities that promote traditional Aboriginal culture and values. We observed similar trends when we interviewed Metis parents.
Slide 20 shows the results for the Inuit. We looked at this data according to those who were living in Inuit Nunaat and those living outside. We see higher ratings to community facilities given by those living outside Inuit Nunaat. The only characteristic that did not receive higher ratings was Aboriginal cultural activities, which was rated more highly by those living in Inuit Nunaat. That provides a sample of some of the aspects of the Aboriginal Children's Survey.
Slide 21 illustrates the Aboriginal Peoples Survey and the school experiences of off-reserve First Nations children aged 6 to 14. We recently released this data from the survey.
In slide 22, parents of off-reserve First Nations children aged 6 to 14 were asked, in the Aboriginal Peoples Survey, how well their child was doing based on their knowledge of their school work, from report cards, for example. In 2006, 7 in 10 off-reserve First Nations children aged 6 to 14 were reported by their parents to be doing very well or well in school, based on their knowledge of their child's school work. These findings were similar to those we found in other surveys for children aged 6 to 14 for the general Canadian population.
Turning to slide 23, the study also looked at the factors associated with perceived achievement at school among off- reserve First Nations children, after holding constant other factors such as gender and age. The study found factors associated with relatively higher perceived achievement at school, including, for example, getting along well with teachers or classmates, having parents who were strongly satisfied with school practices, reading books every day, and so on.
We also looked at factors associated with lower perceived achievement, which are listed at bottom of the slide. Those factors were found to be having missed school for two or more weeks in a row during the school year, having been diagnosed with a learning disability or attention deficit or having parents who attended residential schools.
Finally, from the Aboriginal Peoples Survey, we looked at health, particularly of the Metis and Inuit. I will provide some high-level results from those studies before concluding.
In slide 25, respondents were asked to rate their health on a 5-point scale ranging from excellent to poor. This is a standard question we use in many of our health surveys at Statistics Canada. In 2006, nearly 6 in 10, or 58 per cent, of Metis aged 15 or over reported that their health was excellent or very good, the same proportion as in 2001. This compared with 62 per cent of the population of Canada, who rated their health as excellent or very good.
Slide 26 shows that in 2006, just over half, 54 per cent, of all Metis aged 15 and older reported that they had been diagnosed with a chronic condition, about the same proportion as in 2001. The most commonly reported chronic conditions among Metis adults were arthritis or rheumatism, high blood pressure and asthma. In all three cases, rates among Metis were higher than in the general population, after standardizing or taking into account age differences.
Finally, on slide 27 is the utilization of health care by the Metis. Metis aged 15 and over were slightly less likely to have seen a family doctor in the previous12 months compared with the total population of Canada.
Next, I wish to talk about Inuit health and chronic conditions, slides 28 and 29. This shows the percentage of Inuit and the total population aged 15 and over who self-rate their health as excellent or very good. This is similar to what was reported for the Metis. For all age groups, a lower proportion of Inuit rated their health to be excellent or very good than was the case for the total population. About 50 per cent of Inuit adults stated that their health was either excellent or very good in 2006.
In terms of diagnosed chronic conditions among the Inuit, on slide 30, the most frequently reported chronic conditions were arthritis and high blood pressure. These rates were about the same as those reported among the total Canadian population after differences in age structures were taken into account.
On slide 31, we asked about contact with the medical profession, medical doctors. Inuit were less likely than others to have contact with a doctor. This was true for all Inuit in all age groups. Few Inuit communities have a resident doctor. The point of first contact with the medical system is often with a nurse. Inuit requiring the services of a doctor are usually flown out of the community for treatment in larger centres.
That gives you an overview of the different aspects and what we have found on the Aboriginal population from these data sources. The last slide gives you information about where further analysis and data can be found. That concludes my presentation.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Badets. We will now go to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC. I believe, colleagues, you have before you a copy of some of the information that Mr. Guimond will give us. I hope we will have time for questions. We must be out of this room at a given time. For those who do not know, this committee is being televised.
[Translation]
Éric Guimond, Senior Research Manager, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to come and talk about demographics with you.
[English]
My colleague and I have two decks. One is called "highlights,'' which I will be speaking to; the other is a longer version that contains a lot more information.
The first slide is an overview. I want to highlight the elements that I will be speaking about this morning. First are the definitions emphasizing elements of discussion that Ms. Badets has already put forward. I will spend most of my time focusing on population growth and some well-being indices that we have developed at strategic research analysis at INAC.
Turning to the next slide, on page 3, at INAC we used a similar overall count for the Aboriginal population for 2006, who are almost 1.2 million individuals. However, it is broken down slightly differently to how Statistics Canada released the information in January of last year.
We emphasize the three elements that are captured through this identity concept, or construct, and end up with four groupings of Aboriginal peoples: the registered Indians, which show at about 624,000 in 2006; the Metis, 355,000; the non-status Indians; Inuit; and another Aboriginal grouping, which is made up of individuals who self-reported more than one Aboriginal identity or declared being a First Nation band member.
For those who are into numbers, you might realize that some of these numbers, for the Inuit and Metis, for example, are slightly smaller than the ones that were released more than a year ago. This is due in part to the individuals who will self-declare another Aboriginal identity other than First Nation and also be a registered Indian according to the Indian Act. With this particular definition in this pie chart, no double counting is involved; we are only counting individuals once.
Issues of definition should not be taken too lightly because of the implications of how we analyze the data. If I am looking at the Aboriginal people as a whole and looking at where they live, on this next slide, it will give me quite a different picture than if I look at these groups individually. That is, unfortunately, a common mistake that is seen in some of the quick analyses done following release, which Statistics Canada tries to discourage, and so do we.
In the next slide, you will notice the huge differences in terms of where people lived in 2006 according to their Aboriginal identity. About half the registered Indians live on-reserve. However, the majority of non-status Indians and Metis live in cities — called here "urban non-CMA,'' or non-census-metropolitan area — or urban CMA. The Inuit are largely in rural areas, in the North. The non-Aboriginal population is, not surprisingly, mostly found in cities. You notice immediately from this chart that the non-Aboriginal population and non-status Indians and Metis have similar residential patterns. However, that is not the case for registered Indian and Inuit population. I am making the case that definition is an important factor to consider within analyzing data, as is specificity of group. If you lump everyone together, you lose that specificity.
The next slide shows two elements of the annual growth rate of the population during a particular census period. The blue bar on the left of your chart shows about 2.8 per cent for the registered Indians between 1996 and 2001. That is the growth rate of that population during that period. A quick glance at the entire chart shows that growth varies significantly from group to group and from period to period. Most people outside of demography — I am a demographer — cannot appreciate how fast some of these growth rates are. That is why we have that horizontal blue line the middle of the chart at 5.5 per cent. That is the maximum natural increase. For Canada as a whole, in theory, these populations should only be reproducing themselves through birth; no one is coming from abroad. The maximum rate for the country for these populations should be around 5.5 per cent. For the Metis, it exceeds 5.5 per cent. That 5.5 per cent figure represents about 10 births for children, which is not the case for any of these Aboriginal groups. It is a population that doubles every 13 years and is 200 times its initial size after 100 years. This gives you an idea of how explosive this growth is, especially for the Metis. In the cities, it is even faster. Similar patterns are found across the group, but it is much faster than what we see in First Nation and Inuit communities.
This is not a natural increase — that is, it is not birth. Nor is it because these groups have higher fertility, especially in cities. When we talk about growth in Canadian cities, most often people will attribute it to a migration from First Nation communities, an exodus. The data before you is only for the 2001-06 period, but if I could present any census period starting from 1966, you would see that First Nation communities or reserves gain through migration. Their net migration is positive: More people move to reserves than leave reserves. It has been like that since 1966. This idea of a mass exodus from reserves to explain the explosive growth of Aboriginal populations in Canadian cities is a myth. It is a myth that is persistent because every time data comes out, we see this type of analysis throughout the media. I am not saying that the Aboriginal population is not mobile, because it is a mobile population. However, the explanation for this explosive growth is not migration or mobility.
In fact, the explanation for the tremendous growth of the Metis population in particular, but also to a lesser extent the First Nation population living off -reserve, is a phenomenon referred to in demographic circles as ethnic mobility, or changes in self-reporting of affiliation through time. At a particular census, a person might say, "I am French,'' and at the next census this person might say, "I am Metis,'' or "I am First Nation.'' I personally did analysis looking at the 1986 to 2001 period that very strongly indicates that about 100,000 persons self-declaring as Metis in 2001 were not self-declaring as Metis in 1986. They came into the population through this declaration during that period. The numbers are a little smaller for the Indian population, but still significant — about 40,000 individuals. One hundred thousand Metis in 2001 represents 40 per cent of that population that did not self-report as Metis in the previous censuses.
I am often asked in conferences why it is like that. No strong information or solid evidence points in a particular direction, but one could conclude that there might be three potential factors that contribute to these shifts in self- declaration.
The first is the demographic factor. In cities, you have many mixed couples. The children of a First Nation person and a non-First Nation person can be First Nation, non-First Nation or both. The way they report themselves over time may vary according to circumstances. The demographic factor of intermarriage is certainly an element that contributes to this blurring of boundaries between the different groups in Canadian cities.
The second is the social factor. The number of stories in the media from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s that used the words "Aboriginal'' or "First Nation'' or "Metis'' or whatever, spiked during the early 1990s. This spike, interestingly enough, matches the spike that we see in the growth rate in these populations. At that time, we had the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, so social events triggered a response among individuals, a desire to self- identify, a pride whereby people wanted to all of a sudden say, "Hey, I am First Nation or Metis or Inuit.''
The third is the legal factor. In 1985, we had the amendment of the Indian Act that resulted in a very large number, more than 100,000 individuals, mostly women and their children, being reinstated. That also triggered changes in how people self-reported in the census and other survey activities.
That concludes my part on population growth. I will now move to the next slide on well-being.
The unit where I work has borrowed UN methodology. The UN has been measuring the Human Development Index for a long time now. It is trying to assess well-being of countries so that they can be compared for a particular year or across time. We have replicated the methodology for the registered Indian population, and on this slide is the human development index, HDI, for 1996-2006. This index is made up of three very simple elements: a measure of life expectancy, income per capita and educational attainment. Each of them has the same weight in the overall score, which goes from zero to one.
Judging from the slide, it is obvious. Everyone knew that the well-being of registered Indians is significantly lower than other Canadians, but it is always a good idea to substantiate it with numbers. What some people did not know before we measured is that it is improving. The slide shows from 1996 to 2006, although prior work started in 1981, and it shows an improvement throughout that 25-year period. Notably, for the 1996-2006 period, the gap between the two populations remains constant. Little improvement has been made on that front.
I will not show you the details by region, but I want to highlight that the lowest HDI score is in Manitoba and Saskatchewan First Nation communities.
With respect to gender gap, registered Indian women do better than registered Indian men, and the gender gap has been increasing, which is somewhat unusual by international standards.
The HDI is a high-level measure. It looks at the well-being of a population. The methodology that we borrowed from the UN does not allow measurement at the community level, primarily because you are dealing with very small communities. Building on that methodology, we have developed the community well-being index, which you see on the next slide. This slide is what we call a histogram, a distribution of communities according to their community well- being score. Similar to the HDI, the community well-being score looks at income per capita and educational attainment but not life expectancy because it is impossible to calculate for a small population, so we replaced that with housing and labour force activity, again giving each element equal weight in the overall score that runs from zero to one.
This slide gives you the distribution of First Nation communities and other Canadian communities according to their score. The tallest blue bar means that 37 per cent of other Canadian communities have a score that runs between 0.75 and 0.80 on the community well-being index scale. This chart re-emphasizes that the well-being of First Nation communities is much lower than other Canadian communities. It also shows a great variation across First Nation communities, much more than that of other Canadian communities. Put another way, other Canadian communities tend to enjoy similar levels of well-being, while great variation exists across First Nations communities. Among the bottom 100 communities in Canada, 96 are First Nation; only one is among the top 100.
Turning to the next slide, like the human development index, the community well-being index offers a possibility of tracking through time. The table gives you an idea of the proportion of communities that have been either stable or increasing, or decreasing. We see from this that more than one third of First Nation communities have shown a decrease in their well-being between 2001-2006, down from the previous census period.
These are all preliminary estimates. I have to say that you are enjoying a primer here because we have not yet presented these in conferences. They suggest that maintaining improved levels of well-being for First Nation communities represents a significant challenge. Similar analysis will be done for the Inuit community in the months to come.
The last slide has always been one of my favourites. This methodology allows for comparison of gaps across dimensions of well-being. That means if I take the census data that is published, because this is all census data, I will get a proportion of university graduates for my education variable. If I look at housing, I will get overcrowding measures.
How can I figure out which one has the largest gap relative to the other Canadian population? I cannot because I am working with different scales. It is the typical apples-and-oranges situation.
This methodology, because it rescales everything from zero to one using that UN approach, allows for these gap comparisons across dimensions of well-being. We see that the largest gap is in housing and income. I am not saying the gap in education is not big or is not important. I am saying the gap in housing and income, relatively speaking, is bigger.
From 1996 to 2006, there seems to be a widening of the gap for housing and income, but it is fairly slight, and we have to do some further analysis to tease out some of the participation effect in the census.
You will notice that education appears to indicate a tremendous jump in the gap. I caution you not to jump to that interpretation too fast because, in 2006, Statistics Canada introduced significant changes to their education module in the census questionnaire, which were needed to better reflect the educational attainments of Canadians, but which complicates comparisons over time when you are trying to do something like I am doing now with this particular slide. Some of this gap increase for education is, in a nutshell, a statistical artifact.
Overall, with respect to the well-being slides presented, there is a significant gap relative to other Canadians but improvement over time, and, interestingly, the gender gap is favourable to First Nations women, which should be considered an interesting policy angle in the future. Housing and income are the areas where the widest gap has been observed.
The Chair: You say that there was great variation in First Nation communities. Did your survey deal with remote areas versus non-remote areas? That could be, from my experience, where we see the greatest variation in the community well-being index. Did you have information in regard to remote areas vis-à-vis the other areas?
Mr. Guimond: This is all census-based information, so it is information that has been collected through the census for all Canadians. It is, therefore, comparable for everyone across geography.
In the past, but not with this particular round of estimates, we have looked at the effect of isolation. Unfortunately, I did not have a map ready for you today. Geography is one element that explains the level of well-being that we see in First Nation and Inuit communities, but certainly not the only one because we see communities in the Yukon and in the north of Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have fairly high levels of well-being, while others closer to cities have low levels of well-being. It is an element but not the only one.
Senator Sibbeston: I come from the Northwest Territories where there are a lot of Aboriginals living in small communities, and I have been conscious of our tendency to look down on people living in the remote small communities and feel sorry for them in the sense that they do not have big houses or use different foods and so forth. However, I know that people are happy and content living in small communities. Even though they do not have big houses or vegetables, they have fish and meat. That way of life makes them happy, and they do not want to live in a bigger centre in the area.
Have statistics come to a point where they can question and deal with people's well-being, happiness and contentedness? As Canadians, I believe we would generally look down on people who have less, but, in reality, those people are better off. They do not have the worries of mortgages or the tensions and pressures that people who live in cities have. These days, with the economic downturn, thousands of people are losing their jobs, whereas in small communities where people do not have jobs, they do not have that pressure and unhappiness.
I want to make the point that people tend to think of Aboriginal people, particularly those in small communities, as unfortunate in the sense that we would not want to be them. However, in reality they are much happier, and they are more likely to go to heaven, whereas people in cities are not likely to go to heaven. What do you think of that?
Cathy Connors, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics, Statistics Canada: One of things that we are able to do with the Aboriginal surveys is to try to get at exactly what you are talking about, and that is the satisfaction with various elements.
Earlier, Ms. Badets mentioned one of the questions asked on the Aboriginal Children's Survey that tried to get at people's satisfaction with their communities as a place to raise children. It is those types of questions that will speak to exactly what you are talking about.
Mr. Guimond: Thank you for your comment, senator. It speaks to the normative dimension of many of these measures, and I agree with you. We tend to overstate the importance of these measures and maybe go beyond in terms of imposing some of the values that might be behind them.
The purpose here is not so much this normative idea; it is more driven by the necessity to compare. With First Nation, Inuit and Metis population, we are limited when it comes to comparing the well-being of those populations to the rest of the Canadian population.
That being said, the well-being research program that we have in our unit is not limited to using the existing data. It also has a qualitative dimension to it, where we go into First Nation communities and have a discussion about well- being; what it is, what it means and what is not captured by the data that is currently available. We have this program well underway, and some of the research will be showcased soon.
Senator Sibbeston: I was recently in Yellowknife. At a Dene Nation meeting, Statistics Canada was reading off statistics like this. Many of the people said that the statistics and information were not from an Aboriginal point of view. It occurred to me that there is probably some truth to it. In measuring people's states, some factors are constant and some factors can be measured, such as education level, employment and health, to a certain extent. However, so many other factors are relevant to Aboriginal people who live in the rural remote areas of our land.
I do not know what your view is, but the general view of the Aboriginal people at that meeting was not to trust these statistics because they were not taken from an Aboriginal point of view. The methodology, the language, whether people understand the questions and so forth is also in question. Have you any response to that criticism?
Ms. Connors: We try to get more involvement from Aboriginal people throughout the entire survey process at Statistics Canada with the Aboriginal surveys, and also with the census recently. We had a lot of input and advice from national Aboriginal organizations in the design and implementation of the Aboriginal Peoples Survey. We had a group of experts in early childhood development of Aboriginal children involved in designing and implementing the Aboriginal Children's Survey.
Recently, we have had discussions with various people across Canada in a review of the questions that we use to identify Aboriginal people on both the census and the survey. Although we try to make the consultations or discussions with Aboriginal people as wide as possible, and to include as many people as possible in those discussions, we do try to get a First Nations, Metis and Inuit perspective when we are designing and implementing the surveys.
Senator Peterson: What is the threshold or what are the criteria for Metis identification? Do these statistics drive anything in particular, in terms of programs, for example, or are they for reference only?
Ms. Badets: I will answer the first question on the Metis identification. We have asked these questions on the census in the same way for a number of censuses now, especially the Aboriginal identity questions. The respondents can check off First Nations or North American Indian, Metis or Inuit. We do not provide a definition of the different groups. Metis identification is a little more difficult; no consensus exists about who is Metis. It is self-reporting and self- remuneration. We do represent the three groups mentioned in the Canadian Constitution, so that is the type of information we are collecting.
We do consultations across Canada with the national Aboriginal organizations and other organizations, and with respondents themselves, to ensure the questions are relevant. We do that for each census. There is no threshold; it is really self-identification.
Senator Peterson: Do these statistics drive anything in particular, in terms of programs or funding, or are they just for reference?
Mr. Guimond: It is difficult to give one answer because a variety of situations are involved. The data certainly provides important contextual information. Having the population figures for all four Aboriginal groups is extremely valuable, because you can then develop population projections, which are useful tools for planning.
If the data are not used for measuring, they are used for setting up contextual information. This refers to all census data, but program data is also collected by the different departments in support of their activities. Programs usually use a mixture of program data and census data.
Senator Brazeau: Your presentations provided a lot of information to digest. I have a couple of comments and questions.
I see that what has been utilized is identity as opposed to ancestry. Many individuals across the country have spoken against using identity because of the restrictive conditions imposed by the Indian Act to be able to be registered in this country. Because of the discrimination that the Indian Act imposes on who is able to be registered, I do not feel the data reflects the true Aboriginal population in this country, especially with those children who fall outside the second- generation cut-off rule and are certainly Indian or First Nation but are not Indian under the Indian Act. Therefore, the data is not truly reflective of the situation.
I am referring to slide 6 of the Aboriginal demographic highlights. With respect to the numbers that we have before us, I would like to know specifically which Aboriginal political organizations were engaged in these deliberations and discussions. Because of my former experience in speaking and dealing with different service delivery organizations across the country, organizations that represent individuals who live off-reserve, for example, as well as the National Association of Friendship Centres, I would disagree that there is not a mass exodus, or at least a migration, from on- reserve to off-reserve. Let us not forget that the non-status Indian population is not reflected in these numbers.
This slide says that the misunderstanding of the exodus from on-reserve to off-reserve could adversely affect public policy development. I have an issue with that statement because it seems to be fear-mongering, telling the First Nation population that if they move off-reserve, this could affect programs and services and potentially their rights.
What is the department trying to say here? Is it basically admitting that programs and services or rights are different, depending on whether you live on- or off-reserve?
Mr. Guimond: I will start with the last issue of migration.
If, in policy developers' minds, there is a mass exodus, they will expend much effort in developing policies and programs to welcome these people in the cities.
The numbers you are seeing — 10,000-plus for on-reserve — are the net of movement in and out. As I said, the population is very mobile, but the effect on population growth is not that great because there is movement in and there is movement out. If we had three hours to talk about the demography of Aboriginal people, I would have taken the opportunity to show that most of the movements are between off-reserve sites, between cities, and some of these movements are driven by considerations related to family, education and housing. That has been demonstrated through research using the 1991 APS, the first Aboriginal Peoples Survey.
It is in that context that the statement is made. If you assume that many people are coming from the reserve, you will be in a certain frame of mind, and you will develop your policies accordingly when you should in fact be focusing on people who are moving either within the city or across cities because of the reasons I just enumerated.
People tend to overlook an element. It is not by chance that I spoke earlier about intermarriage. In a First Nation community, a child will have two First Nation parents. In a Canadian city, a First Nation child might have just one First Nation parent because the other parent might not be First Nation. You can see that the potential for growth in Canadian cities compared to First Nation communities is double. It is based on how parents will identify their children. Through self-identification data, we see that First Nation and Metis parents identify their children as Aboriginal even though their spouse may be a non-Aboriginal person. We tend to overlook that aspect in cities, which is a strong engine for growth that you will never find in First Nations communities because they are homogeneous communities where two parents are First Nation or Inuit in Inuit communities.
Senator Brazeau: I appreciate your response, but the point I was trying to make is that — and you can correct me if I am wrong — the current investments by the federal government are 90 per cent toward on-reserve communities.
My question concerns a fear-mongering statement, namely, that if First Nations people move off-reserve, that could affect public policy. Does it matter where individuals choose to live in order to have programs and services to deal with them and to affect them?
Andrew Beynon, Director General, Research Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: The most important part of this statement is not to deny the major pressures that we have in terms of population in urban centres and the growth of the Metis population, and so on. As shown in other parts of the deck, very significant issues exist off-reserve. The important point to convey is that when you see those big numbers, which are very important in terms of policy and funding pressures both outside of reserves and in urban centres, policy makers should not be making policies on the assumption that, suddenly, there is an exodus of the population away from the reserves. On-reserve still has a significant population base. It is not a question of penalties for your movement as an individual and where you choose to live.
I speak from personal experience. I have sometimes been in situations where individuals have seen the numbers for growth in cities and among the Metis population and made the mistaken assumption that it must mean that these people had to have come from moving away from reserves. Mr. Guimond has made the point that a significant part of that population figure is not based on losing the population on reserves, which might cause some policy makers to think that they should stop dealing with on- reserve housing and schooling, and so on.
I did not want to leave the impression that there is not a very significant policy issue in both places, namely, off- reserve and on-reserve.
Senator Dyck: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the detailed information. This sort of information is very important because it does drive policy changes.
I would like to follow up with what Senator Brazeau was talking about. Your statement says, "urban Aboriginals.'' When you are talking about an urban Aboriginal population, then you are presumably including status, non-status and Metis. However, when you are talking about reserves, you are only talking then about treaty Indians. On page 6, when you say "urban Aboriginals,'' do you mean those three groups, namely, the status, non-status and Metis? Do you actually have separate numbers for status Indians in urban communities?
Mr. Guimond: Yes, we have those numbers separately.
Senator Dyck: If we had all the pieces of information, then that might allow us to see where the growth is occurring. When you group them all together versus looking at one group that lives on-reserve, we get a false impression of what the trends actually are.
Mr. Guimond: It is in the detailed deck.
Senator Dyck: Thank you. I wanted to comment briefly on what Senator Sibbeston said with regard to the community well-being. He is bang on in terms of research — and you answered this partially — namely, that when you conduct research on Aboriginal versus non-Aboriginal populations, you should have two separate criteria and different strategies. When the UN came up with the index where the factors are life expectancy, income and education, presumably they selected those categories for a reason: Those would be the elements within our society for which we can actually create policy and make changes. Would that be a correct assumption? That is, by doing this type of survey, we have stated that those are the elements for which we will develop programs.
Mr. Guimond: A great deal of thinking went into the UN methodology. In the past, those measures were just GDP related. They decided that it is not enough to measure well-being through economic means. An element of knowledge must be added. That is why they built in both an educational element and an element of health, namely, life expectancy. In an international context, trying to measure and compare well-being across countries is a challenge because some countries do not necessarily have the statistical capacity that my colleagues have — one of the best in the world, especially when it comes to the Aboriginal population. They have to develop simple measures for measuring well-being and comparing it over time. That brings me back to my earlier comment: We are relying on a very finite, limited set of statistical information when it comes to measuring the demographic, socio-economic portrait of Aboriginal people. It is driven by data also.
Senator Dyck: Again, you were talking about knowledge. The definition of "knowledge'' that is being used is the Western model of knowledge — that is, the level of educational attainment within the public school system — rather than cultural knowledge, elder knowledge, and so on. It is more like a self-reported cultural index. Those factors might be important to consider at some stage in the future.
Finally, on page 11, you have identified different gaps. With respect to gaps or increases or decreases, what level is considered to be a significant change?
Mr. Guimond: As I stated earlier, we must assess the quality of the information that we have been analyzing. Hence, the statement about preliminary estimates here. Generally, if I see a variation at the second decimal in hundreds, I do not qualify it as a change. It is more or less stability. A change of .05 should start to raise my attention. That is my rule of thumb when I am looking at these numbers.
Senator Dyck: In your larger handout, do you have more details with regard to the gender differences?
Mr. Guimond: Yes, we do.
Senator Dyck: Certainly, the Western model has large differences in terms of educational attainment. Many more Aboriginal women are graduating from high school and obtaining their degrees. It is threefold higher in Saskatchewan. That would make quite a big difference.
In your data, do you have separate data for First Nations living on-reserve versus those living off-reserve?
Mr. Guimond: Not for community well-being. Here, we are interested in First Nation communities — that is, reserves. When looking at the HDI, yes, we are looking at differences on- and off-reserve because those are population figures. We are interested in populations there rather than communities. It is a subtle but significant difference.
Senator Lang: I would like to thank you for that information. Being a new member here, it is informative, and I appreciate the work you have done.
I would like to point out an area on page 4 of the initial statistics that were brought forward by Ms. Badets. The figure that jumps out at me is the one of Native ancestry of almost 1.67 million, as opposed to the figure on your chart of 1.72 million. That is a difference of roughly 500,000 people. I take it from Senator Peterson's question about how one identifies themselves that it could conceivably be that if these 500,000 people decided they were either non-status or Metis, then suddenly we would be at an identity of 1.7 million. Is that correct, if they decide to identify themselves in that manner?
Ms. Badets: Yes, it is about that. Those are two different questions on the questionnaire. The ancestry question on the census has been one we have asked for a long time. It also collects all ancestries, ethnic groups and affiliations. That question has changed a bit over time. Since about 1981-86, people can give more than one ethnic ancestry. In part, you are seeing that increase because people are reporting it. For example, they may be reporting an Aboriginal ancestry with many others, such as Italian, German, Canadian, et cetera. We are measuring a different concept there versus identity, when it says, "Are you an Aboriginal person?'' Two different concepts are being measured.
Senator Lang: To pursue this further, looking at the numbers and the population growth, Mr. Guimond pointed out a little earlier that we will see a 200 per cent growth in Metis in 100 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Guimond: I was stating that if the population grew by 5.5 per cent a year, hypothetically, that population would be 200 times its initial size after 100 years.
Senator Lang: Looking at the numbers, it seems to me that the committee has to evaluate this in conjunction with government policy, because obviously the numbers that we are talking about are increasing substantially over a very brief period of time. How we are able to deliver programs in conjunction with the population has to be brought into policy with this demographic look at where we are going.
Mr. Guimond: Hence my comment about the value of the census data, because at the very least it brings us information about population and population growth, which informs policy.
Senator Lang: My last question has to do with education. I was surprised to see the number of Aboriginal parents who seemed to be, overall, pleased with the educational system. I was surprised to see that especially in the region I come from. We have significant problems. Just from reading across Canada, one of our major outstanding issues is the question of our standard of education and whether or not we are equipping these younger people to go out in this ever- changing world that we face. Would you elaborate a little further on the positive information that has been brought forward, when especially, at least in my part of the country, I know it is not necessarily true.
Ms. Connors: For the education section of the presentation, we were looking at First Nations children living off- reserve between the ages of 6 and 14. We asked the parents their perception of how well their children were doing in school based on whatever it is that the parents know about report cards, feedback from the school, and so on. This is really a perception type question about the parents' opinion of how well the children are doing. It is not based on objective measures such as report cards and tests and that type of thing. It is parental perception of how well they are doing.
Mr. Guimond: The key element here is that it is only part of the population, off-reserve, and the perception of education of parents living on-reserve is not collected through this particular activity. We only focus on one segment of the population here. Your perception might be driven by your own on-the-ground understanding in your area that also includes reserve communities. I want to highlight that this is not everyone.
Senator Lang: I think I am dealing with fact, not perception. I only have to look at page 10, the Aboriginal people less likely to have university credentials, and it is substantially less for high school. If we go through that, we realize the difficulty that many of these young people face. We have to realize that there is a bigger problem out there than perhaps what these statistics point out. Why are the reserve statistics not involved in these papers that were brought forward?
Mr. Beynon: They are different surveys. In the Aboriginal Peoples Survey, one block of it is off-reserve, and we have separate surveys for on-reserve. Some work is underway now to make progress on how we will proceed with the ones that are on-reserve. This is just a question of the data available to do the snapshot right now. We do not presently have the on-reserve one.
Senator Lang: When should we expect that to be done?
Mr. Beynon: We are actually having some discussions among federal departments on the timing and process right now.
Ms. Badets: We are not into a specific time frame on those. We are working with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to think about what the content of these surveys would be and how we would conduct them. In the next two years, we hope to be doing some pilot testing around those surveys.
Senator Raine: I am new to all of this, and I find it quite intriguing. I do not totally understand the difference between non-status Indian and Metis, but obviously these are the two groups that have rapid demographic increases. I find it very encouraging that it looks as though many more people are happy to declare themselves as First Nations ancestry or Metis, which means we are going beyond a period where people were ashamed of their heritage. I find this very positive, but it obviously begs the question: How do we count the different people, why are we counting them and what are the programs? When we have four groups like that, there is inevitably a tug and pull as to which group gets more than the others and so on. We are facing a big challenge. I would encourage the demographic and collection of statistics to work toward some real ability to help in the programming.
Mr. Beynon: You are quite right. This kind of information is very intriguing. Over time, working with Statistics Canada, as we refine more precise information and more sophisticated tools to get at Aboriginal perceptions and so on, it is useful for program and policy development. It is quite interesting.
Senator Brazeau: Would you agree that the possibility exists that a child born from two parents who are section 6(2) Indians under the Indian Act, therefore becoming "non-status Indian,'' would be captured in the ancestry data, but you might potentially have a self-identifying Metis of eight generations, for the sake of argument, who will be captured in the identity data?
Ms. Badets: We certainly do a lot of testing. We do not dream up these questions on our own. We have worked for a long time to come up with questions that we believe meet the demands of most of our data users. I feel they actually show the complexity and diversity of the population. You can see by taking different concepts — whether ancestry, identity or legal status, such as registered Indian — how differences appear in both characteristics and outcomes, perhaps, and how people just respond in the census. It is hard to know exactly how each individual will respond in the situation in the example you have given.
We have recently had regional discussions across the country on the questions. For the 2011 Census, we are looking at clarifying how non-status and status should respond to these questions. We are considering adding an instruction that they should respond First Nations or North American Indian, for example. However, how people actually interpret and respond is more difficult to know, although we do quite a bit of testing around it. I am not sure that answers your question, but how people might want to self-identify is complex.
Mr. Guimond: I think you probably meant a section 6(2) Indian with the non-First Nation because two 6(2) Indians together will give a 6(1) Indian, a person who is automatically registered, so then the parents and the child would be both registered.
With respect to section 6(1) or 6(2), that is not captured through the census, so it is detailed information that we find only with the Indian register.
It is important not to forget that ancestry is about ancestors, and identity is about a person today. I often give my students my own personal example: I am French, Mi'kmaq and Irish, but I was raised as French. I am French, but I will report the three ancestries. Therefore, people will often report that distinction.
Because of the structure of the identity question, the question as to how Metis plays into this is valid, but it not necessarily related to section 6(2) Indians because that information it is not in the census.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for the correction. You are absolutely right; it was my mistake.
I asked the question because I was once a non-status Indian who regained status. However, growing up, I was also labelled as Metis, so, obviously, there are many problems there.
However, one of the problems is that we still have, in 2009, a Minister of Indian Affairs deciding who is a status Indian and who is not, as opposed to the people.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Statistics are quite an interesting subject.
You have quite a challenge before you because I am sure anyone and everyone can challenge your statistics. However, having said that, the information that you do provide, hopefully, will help us determine what direction we will pursue in our future studies to help the plight of our constituency, the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. I thank the four of you for coming here this morning and being forthright, candid and informative to our colleagues here.
I have a short duty to do here with Senator Sibbeston. As many of you know, Senator Sibbeston was a student in a residential school. He spent many of his younger years there. I have, on behalf of the government, a signed copy of the statement of apology to former students of Indian residential schools. It is signed by the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper and by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Chuck Strahl. This has been presented to us to hang in a prominent place in this Aboriginal committee room because it is such a significant part of the history of our country.
I ask you, Senator Sibbeston, to present this to the clerk so that she will find a prominent place. It is only befitting that you should do that, sir.
Senator Sibbeston: Thank you.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments before we adjourn?
Senator Dyck: I do have a question for Mr. Guimond. Which was the First Nation community that ranked in the top 100?
Mr. Guimond: Are you asking about 2006?
Senator Dyck: Yes, I am.
Mr. Guimond: It was the Tsawwassen community in British Columbia.
The Chair: There being no other comments, we will adjourn until tomorrow evening at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will reconvene in this room.
(The committee adjourned.)