ATLAS OF URBAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLES

Cities Featured in the Atlas

Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Prince Albert Calgary Edmonton

ABORIGINAL URBANIZATION IN CANADA: CHALLENGES IN MEASUREMENT AND INTERPRETATION

Introduction

In 1901, only 5.1 percent of Aboriginal people lived in urban areas, and that percentage had only increased to 6.7 percent by 1951. In 2006, slightly more than half of Canada’s Aboriginal people lived in urban areas. Aboriginal people comprise the largest urban minority group in many prairie cities. Despite the growing size and distinctive characteristics of urban Aboriginal populations, they have received relatively little attention among Canadian academics and policymakers.

This Atlas of Urban Aboriginal Peoples attempts to make some information about Aboriginal people in urban areas in Canada available to a wide audience by mapping settlement patterns and socio-economic characteristics. The Atlas is part of the research on Aboriginal people and cities associated with the Canada Research Chair on Identity and Diversity: The Aboriginal Experience held by Dr. Evelyn J. Peters at the University of Saskatchewan.

There are some unique challenges associated with using Census data on Aboriginal people. Different Census definitions affect population size, characteristics and change over time. Users are therefore encouraged to read the following sections that explain data about urbanization patterns, some of challenges associated with interpreting changes over time, the ways data are used in the maps for the atlas.

Aboriginal Urbanization Processes and Patterns

Table 1 describes changes in urbanization between 1996 and 2006 for individuals who identified as Aboriginal in response to census questions. Between 1996 and 2006 the proportion of the Aboriginal population living on reserves and rural areas declined from 53.2% to 46.8%, while the proportion living in urban areas increased from 46.8% to 53.2%. There are differences in urbanization for different legal categories of Aboriginal peoples. Métis people are most highly urbanized, with almost 70% living in urban areas. While this is lower than the Canadian urbanization rate which is above 80%, it is substantially higher than the rate for other Aboriginal groups. Inuit people have the lowest proportion living in cities. Urbanization for First Nations increased from 40% to almost 45% between 1996 and 2006. However the proportion of Registered Indians (First Nations people registered under the Indian Act) living in cities remained relatively constant at close to 40%.

Sources: Siggner 2003. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/dataprofiles/aboriginal/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed July 2008.

However the interpretation of the data in Table 1 is more complex than it appears at first glance. For several census periods a number of reserves have refused to participate in census taking. As a result, the number and proportion of First Nations and especially Registered Indians living on reserves are underestimated. Norris and Clatworthy (2003:54) suggested that if unenumerated reserve populations had been included in 1996, approximately 60% of Registered Indians would live on reserves. Moreover when we look at absolute numbers rather than proportions, both reserve and urban Aboriginal populations increased between 1996 and 2006. In other words, increasing urbanization rates do not mean that reserves are being depopulated as urban First Nations populations grow.

The growth in the urban Aboriginal population in recent decades cannot be explained only by population measures such as fertility, mortality and migration (Guimond, 2003). Legislation allowing for the reinstatement of First Nations people who had lost their status through a variety of processes accounts for part of the increase. Changing patterns of identification are also thought to contribute. Siggner (2003) suggested that changing attitudes toward Aboriginal peoples in Canada provided a climate for individuals to identify as Aboriginal, whereas they had previously not done so in response to census questions.

Table 2 documents changes in census counts of Aboriginal people between 1951 and 2006. While these statistics demonstrate a trend, it is important to remember that the geographies over which the census was taken and the definitions of Aboriginal have varied over the years. For example, in 1951, “Eskimos” and “half-breeds” were included in the count of “Indians.” The 1971 count did not include the Inuit. The 1991, 2001, and 2006 statistics refers to individuals who identify themselves as Aboriginal, and these data are roughly comparable to individuals who identified with an Aboriginal category in the 1981 census. Despite challenges with comparability, the numbers show that Aboriginal populations in urban areas have increased substantially over the last five decades.

While Table 2 presents information about some large cities in eastern Canada, this atlas focuses on Aboriginal populations in prairie cities. The majority of Aboriginal people in Canada live on the prairies, and Aboriginal people make up that largest proportion of total urban populations in these cities. We focus on Census Metropolitan Areas because smaller cities that may have large Aboriginal population are not tracted[2], making it difficult to map settlement patterns.

Table 2: Aboriginal People in Major Metropolitan Centres, 1951 - 2006
								Percent of Total CMA Population, 2006
	1951	1961	1971	1981	1991[3]	2001	2006
Montreal	296	507	3,215	14,450	6,775	11,275	17,865	0.5
Ottawa-Hull[4]	--	--	--	4,370	6,915	13,695	20,590	1.8
Toronto	805	1,196	2,990	13,495	14,205	20,595	26,575	0.5
Winnipeg	210	1,082	4,940	16,570	35,150	55,970	68,385	10.0
Regina	160	539	2,860	6,575	11,020	15,790	17,110	8.9
Saskatoon	48	207	1,070	4,350	11,920	20,455	21,535	9.3
Calgary	62	335	2,265	7,310	14,075	22,110	26,570	2.5
Edmonton	616	995	4,260	13,750	29,235	41,295	52,100	5.1
Vancouver	239	530	3,000	16,080	25,030	37,265	40,310	1.9

Sources: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) Customized Data, 1981 Census (Ottawa: Indian Affairs Branch 1985). Statistics Canada, Perspective Canada (Ottawa: Information Canada1974) 244. http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo43b.htm Accessed January 2003. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/dataprofiles/aboriginal/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed July 2008.

This atlas uses two types of data to compare settlement patterns of Aboriginal population.

Single Origin Ethnicity Maps

Counts for single origin ethnicity are available for the longest period of time (beginning in 1971), and it could be argued that these data maximize comparability over time. Moreover, the single origin ethnicity population does not exhibit the large increases associated with both identity and multiple origin Aboriginal populations that seem to reflect changing patterns of self-identification (see above). We present maps showing the location of the single origin Aboriginal population between 1971 and 2001. There are some drawbacks to Aboriginal origin data. First, the 1971 data do not include Métis. Second, the single origin ancestry Aboriginal population is consistently more socio-economically disadvantaged than the multiple origin or the identity Aboriginal population. Limiting the analysis only to the single origin population may give a biased perspective on the ability of the Aboriginal population to make meaningful choices about residential location.

Since Aboriginal identity numbers are increasingly used by academics and policy-makers, we did not map 2006 Aboriginal origin data.

Aboriginal Identity Maps

It can be argued that the 1981 census data collected under the ethnic origins question is roughly comparable to the data collected in subsequent identity questions. While the 1981 census did not include a question about Aboriginal identity, the census ethnic origin question included a column that allowed respondents to check the categories “Inuit,” Status or registered Indian,” Non-Status Indian,” or “Métis.” Rules of descent were not specified, and while multiple responses were neither encouraged nor discouraged, they were accepted as valid. Using an intercensal cohort survival method, Kerr et al (1996) found that the populations identified by the 1981 Native Peoples ethnic origin question and the 1991 question on Aboriginal identity appeared to be sufficiently similar to support a comparison of some characteristics.

The 1991 identity data were collected through the post-censal Aboriginal Peoples Survey is only available in aggregate for urban areas, not at the census tract level. Therefore, there are no 1991 Aboriginal identity maps in this Atlas. Subsequently Aboriginal identity information was collected through the census, and in 2001 these data were available at the census tract level for large cities. This Atlas maps the Aboriginal identity population for 2001, and 2006, and the 1981 ethnic origin maps are presented for comparison.

Two levels of census geography to map Aboriginal settlement patterns – census tracts (CT) and enumeration/dissemination areas (EA/DA).

Census tracts (CT) or other similarly defined areas have commonly been used as a unit of census geography in the majority of studies of settlement patterns within cities (Deacon 2002) as they are considered the best and closest practical approximation to the concept of neighbourhood (White 1987). These units of geography are established by local committees in conjunction with Statistics Canada and are made internally as homogenous as possible (Statistics Canada 2002:246). Census tracts have relatively large populations ranging between 2,500 and 8,000 with a preferred average of 4,000 (Statistics Canada 2002:246), which allows full disclosure of the socio-economic data suppressed for the smaller units of geography. Additionally, CT boundaries are relatively stable over time making this unit of geography the best choice for comparative studies. However, CT is not a universal unit of Canadian census geography as not all of the metropolitan areas are divided into CTs. For a metropolitan area to become eligible to participate in the CT program. The population of its urban core has to be equal or exceed 50,000. As a result, not all census agglomerations (CAs) were subdivided into CTs (Statistics Canada 2002:206).

Enumeration or dissemination areas are smaller in population, containing 400 to 700 persons (Statistics Canada 2002:251). In fact, they constitute the smallest standard geographic areas for which all census data are disseminated. Before 2001, enumeration areas were based on dwelling counts rather than population counts and their boundaries were subject to change from census to census. Beginning in 2001, dissemination areas are delineated by population counts and boundaries will remain the same. The relatively small size of enumeration/dissemination areas results in the suppression of data to ensure confidentiality of individual responses. This makes the data aggregated at this level of geography more susceptible to the systematic error and distortion as a result of random rounding (Statistics Canada 2002:291-296). Therefore, the data aggregated at this level of geography should be used with caution. However, using EA/DA level of geography for mapping settlement patterns of Aboriginal populations allows us to uncover settlement patterns that are not evident at the CT level (Peach 1996).

The maps in this atlas show city rather than Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) boundaries. Our focus on cities is based on the fact that many Aboriginal people live in more central areas in cities, and mapping CMAs would mean that the details of these areas would be lost in the larger map.

Aboriginal Identity refers to those persons who reported identifying with at least one Aboriginal group, i.e. North American Indian, Métis or Inuit (Eskimo), and/or those who reported being a Treaty Indian or a Registered Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada and/or who were members of an Indian Band or First Nation.

The terms North American Indian, Métis and Inuit are the terms used in the Aboriginal identity question on the Census form. These terms allow the individual respondent to report the specific Aboriginal group with which they self-identify. There are no official definitions provided in the Census for these terms. They do derive from the terms used in the Canadian Constitution in relation to Aboriginal peoples.

The term North American Indian is used for those persons who self-identify as such, and generally refers to persons who consider themselves as part of the First Nations in Canada. Métis generally refers to people who are identify with the Métis Nation in western Canada, or who are of mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestries and who self-identify as Métis. The Inuit are Aboriginal people who originally lived north of the tree line in Canada, and who self-identify as such.

Aboriginal Origin/Ancestry refers to those persons who reported at least one Aboriginal origin in answer to the ethnic origin question (North American Indian, Métis or Inuit). Ethnic origin refers to the ethnic or cultural group(s) to which the respondent’s ancestors belong.

Registered, Status or Treaty Indian refers to those persons who reported they were registered under the Indian Act of Canada. Treaty Indians are persons who are registered under the Indian Act and can prove descent from a Band that signed a treaty.

Member of Indian Band or First Nation refers to those persons who reported being a member of an Indian Band or a First Nation of Canada. Single Ethnic Origins is a census variable that shows those persons who indicate one and only one Aboriginal ancestry.

Multiple Ethnic Origins is a census variable that shows the number of persons who among all their ancestries report at least one Aboriginal ancestry and at least one non-Aboriginal ancestry.

Total Ethnic Origins is a census variable that includes all persons who indicated at least one Aboriginal ancestry in their response to the ethnic origins question.

Oksana Starchenko, digitized early maps and the produced statistics for the pre-2006 maps. Dion Rowney (University of Saskatchewan) and Elise Pietroniro provided technical assistance in producing this atlas. Funding in support for this project from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and the Government of Saskatchewan’s Innovation and Science Fund, is gratefully acknowledged. Statistics Canada produced special cross-tabulations required for this analysis.

Crégheur, A. (1998). Assessment of Data on Aboriginal Identity. 1986 Census of Canada, Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Housing, Family and Social Statistics Division

Goldmann, Gustave (1993). The Aboriginal Population and the Census: 120 Years of Information – 1871 to 1991

Goldmann, Gustave (1994). The Shifting Ethnic Boundaries: Causes, factors and effect, Ottawa: Carleton University

Goldmann, Gustave, and Andrew Siggner (1995). Statistical Concepts of Aboriginal People and Factors Affecting the Counts in the Census and the Aboriginal Peoples Survey. Paper presented to the 1995 Symposium of the Federation of Canadian Demographers. Ottawa

Guimond, Eric (2003). Fuzzy Definitions and Population Explosion: Changing Identities of Aboriginal Groups in Canada. In: David Newhouse and Evelyn Peters. Not Strangers in These Parts: Aboriginal People in Cities. Ottawa: PRI. 35-50

Kerr, D., Andrew J. Siggner and Jean Pierre Bourdeau (1996). Canada’s Aboriginal Population, 1981-1991. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Kerr, D., M-J Norris and E. Guimond (2002). Difficulties Encountered in Projecting Canada’s Aboriginal Population, Discussion Paper No. 02-01, Population Studies Centre, University of Western Ontario

Norris, Mary Jane and Stewart Clatworthy. 2003. ‘Aboriginal Mobility and Migration Within Urban Canada: Outcomes, Factors and Implications’, in David Newhouse and Evelyn Peters, eds., Not Strangers in These Parts: Aboriginal People in Cities. Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative, pp. 51-78.

Siggner, A. J. (2003). Urban Aboriginal Populations: An Update Using the 2001 Census Results, in Not Strangers in These Parts: Urban Aboriginal Peoples, David Newhouse and Evelyn Peters, eds., Policy Research Initiative Publication, pp. 15 – 21

Siggner, Andrew and Hagey, Janet. 2003. Measuring the Demographic and Socio-Economic Conditions of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada using the 2001 Census, Prepared for the Canadian Population Society Annual Meetings, Halifax

Statistics Canada, Census Operations Division (2002). 2001 Census Dictionary

White, M. J. (1987). American Neighborhoods and Residential Differentiation, New York: Russell Sage

Wong, D. W. S., Falk , H. Lasus, R. F. (1999). Exploring the variability of segregation index D with scale and zonal systems: an analysis of thirty US cities, Environment and Planning A, 31:507-522

[1]The total Aboriginal identity population is larger than the total of the individual groups because some individuals identified with more than one category. These responses are included in the total, but not in the individual categories.
[2]Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, for example, had an Aboriginal identity population of 12,140 people in 2006, comprising 36.3 percent of the city’s total population.
[3] Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver had, within their boundaries, reserves that were incompletely enumerated in 1991, 2001, and/or 2006, affecting the counts for those years and cities.
[4] Now called Ottawa Gatineau.