One little, two little, three little Indians…
Oh yes the 2011 census is underway. The long forms were somewhat rescued as part of the new voluntary National Household Survey (NHS). So once again, First Nations, Inuit and Métis will be counted. But it will create new controversy over what the numbers mean, and if data is comparable.
Counting Aboriginal peoples is a hot-button issue in Indian Country. After all, these numbers influence public opinion, determine who gets funding, if services get cut, and which aboriginal groups have political power. That’s why governments and lobby groups pull different sets of numbers, even when using the same source of information. The last time the census data was released, there was a swirl of controversy over on and off-reserve numbers, that made life very confusing for journalists. So I thought I’d take a look back at the much ado about number-crunching, because no doubt we’re in for more of it.
A commonly misunderstood statistic.
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), a group that represents urban aboriginal people, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) say 73.7% of aboriginal people live off-reserve. They arrive at this number by tallying the total number of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people counted in the 2006 census, and subtracting First Nations people who live on reserves. The number is accurate, but the way the number is interpreted can be misleading.
- The 73.7% statistic can create a false impression that First Nations are leaving reserves in droves. The reality is that Métis, Inuit and non-status Indians cannot legally reside on reserve, except in specific circumstances (such as being married to a status Indian). Therefore the majority of the people counted in this number, have never lived on a reserve. The statistic is inappropriate for measuring off-reserve migration.
- This statistic has sometimes been used to argue that too much money is spent on reserves. According to CAP’s numbers, (which I have not independently checked) for $8 spent on reserve, only $1 is spent off reserve. The argument goes that if 73.7% of the aboriginal population lives off reserve, the lion’s share of the funding should be directed off-reserve, a point Patrick Brazeau made when he was leader of CAP 2006 – 2008. While Brazeau never stated what a fair split would be (Did he want 73.7%?), there is a logic problem with simply divvying up funding by the numbers: reserves have some very high infrastructure expenses that urban-living aboriginal people do not, such as building and maintaining roads, water and sewage systems, etc. A better way to measure funding programs is by determining what off-reserve services are needed, which can be done through other census statistics. For example there are specific statistics on urban and rural housing needs for First Nations living off-reserve, Métis and Inuit.
- Using the 73.7% statistic to determine funding creates a false impression that urban aboriginal people are in a fighting over the same dollars that fund First Nations on reserve. In fact the federal government funds most on-reserve programs, while provinces fund most off-reserve programs (housing is one example). Considering that First Nations frequently have family on reserve and that status Indians tend to move back and forth between reserves and cities, it’s also true that many don’t want to see services cut to their families and communities.
Of course, the myth that urban-people and their on-reserve cousins are beating each other up over programs and funding was not helped by the adversarial relationship that existed for several years between CAP and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). However, it’s worth noting that the AFN has worked cooperatively with other groups like the Métis National Council (MNC) and the Inuit Tapirrit Kanatami (ITK) who represent half of the people (33% and 4% respectively) included in the 73.7% statistic.
First Nations on and off-reserve and migration in the 2006 Census.
Rather than using the total aboriginal population to measure the on and off-reserve population, and to determine migration patterns it’s better to use First Nations specific numbers in the census. (Although the AFN disputes the census numbers, discussed in a moment.)
- According to the 2006 Census 40% of those who self-identify as First Nations lived on reserve in 2006, 60% lived off-reserve. However, this does not signal any major migration from reserve to cities, as it’s only a 2% growth in the urban population over 20 years, since the 1996 census. Nor should it be assumed that this 2% change means people are relocating from reserves to cities.
When you look at where First Nations people have been moving, over the past 5 census cycles – that’s 25 years – both cities and reserves experienced net in-migration. How can this be?
- The 2% growth off-reserve is not necessarily because people are leaving reserve, it’s just a reflection of a high birth rate and more people who are self-identifying as First Nations on the census. In reality almost as many people are moving onto reserves as leaving, and that is why the real number of First Nations, both on and off-reserve is growing.
Why does the AFN dispute the census numbers?
The AFN offers a number of reasons to dispute the census numbers.
- The AFN says the census undercounts First Nations people living on reserve, a fact that StatsCan admits. StatsCan recognizes 615 First Nations reserves but did not count 22 reserves who refused to take part in the census, which they estimate amounts to somewhere between 28,205 to 53,041 people. But taking these numbers into consideration does not radically shift the numbers. By my calculations at the low-end of the margin for error you’d get 42.3 % on reserve and 57.7 percent off-reserve; at the high-end you’d get 44.4 on-reserve and 55.7 off-reserve.
- The AFN says that on another 166 First Nations, at least one-quarter of residents weren’t counted– an issue not clearly addressed one way or the other by StatsCan.
- The census may also under-calculate the on-reserve population because the AFN recognizes 633 communities, but only 615 are recognized as reserves by StatsCan and other government agencies.
- The AFN also disputes census numbers because only status Indians can legally live on reserve, (although a small number of non-status Indians live on reserve anyway) but Statistics Canada’s counts non-status Indians in the comparative urban population. In other words they are counting people who can’t live of reserve if they want to.
The AFN would prefer that reporters use the Indian registry, a database maintained by the federal department of Aboriginal Affairs, which showed that in 2006, the same year as the census, that a slight majority of status Indians, 53%, lived on reserve. (Only 43 % lived off reserve and 4% lived on crown land.)
However the Canadian Taxpayers Federation disagrees with using these numbers. In their report “Life is better in the Cities,” which advocates for the elimination of reserves, they argue census figures are better: “Statistics Canada figures measure actual on- and off-reserve registrants present on census day. In contrast, DIAND’s list is about people who have the potential to live there but may already be present in another reserve, in non-reserve towns and cities, or outside of Canada.” The tie breaker in this dispute is Aboriginal Affairs, who sided with the AFN. Dan Beavon, director of strategic research for the Department, has gone on the record saying he’s made the same points (as the AFN) to StatsCan himself. “I imagine that they’ll be doing changes to the way the census questions are done for the 2011 census.”
Hmm.. we shall see…
So which numbers should you use, say if you’re a journalist?
Whichever numbers you use it’s important to ensure they are given in the right context.
- Numbers pointing to aboriginal populations are not an accurate measure of migration. First Nations specific numbers should be used.
- Numbers used to argue for funding need to be specific.
- When census numbers are used, keep in mind they undercount the on-reserve population and off-reserve numbers include people who do not have the legal option to live on a reserve.
- When looking at the increased growth in the off-reserve population, keep in mind that the numbers are increasing because of population growth, and that almost as many people move on-reserve in a given year as those who leave