Impact, meaning of new Aboriginal numbers not yet known

The newest statistics for Aboriginal households places Edmonton second for the largest urban Aboriginal population and Alberta first for the largest Métis population.

According to the figures recently released by Statistics Canada through its new National Household Survey, Alberta has an Aboriginal population of 222,695. Only Ontario and British Columbia have higher Aboriginal populations.

Alberta’s Métis population is 96,865, with Edmonton at 31,775 and Calgary at 17,040, ranking the cities second and fourth, respectively, for the highest numbers of urban Métis. Winnipeg has both the highest urban Aboriginal population and the highest urban Métis population.

Edmonton is the urban centre with the largest Inuit population at 1,115.

Chris Andersen, director of the Rupertsland Centre for Métis Research in the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta, is hesitant to fully embrace the NHS numbers and cautions against comparing these figures with the 2006 Census results.

“In general terms, comparing the (2006) census with the new NHS sample is like comparing apples and oranges and should be done only with caution,” he said.

Different methodology was used to arrive at the 2006 and 2011 figures. As well, the NHS methodology does not have a proven track record, as it is the first time it is being used. NHS also pulls on limited resources. The census was more extensive and has been tested on Aboriginal issues for well over 100 years. How accurate the NHS numbers are will only be known over time as more surveys occur. Andersen also notes that the NHS was unable to get information from 36 of the country’s 863 reserves (compared to 22 in 2006). He does not know if any of the non-participating reserves are from Alberta. If they are, and depending on the number and size of those reserves, the figures could be skewed.

“In other words, I’m not sure, methodologically speaking, how representative the 2011 sample is of the total Aboriginal population in Alberta,” he said.

Statistics Canada also cautions against comparing the two sets of data. Aside from taking into consideration the different methodology used and the reserves that weren’t enumerated when looking at 2006 census figures in relation to the 2011 NHS numbers, StatsCan also notes that new legislation impacted Aboriginal identity and registered Indian status as well as changes made to the definition of reserves.

“Users should take into account the fact that the two sources represent different populations… Moreover, the NHS estimates are derived from a voluntary survey and are therefore subject to potentially higher non-response error than those derived from the 2006 Census long form,” says StatsCan.

Andersen says comparisons can be made between cities using 2011 data from the NHS.

“The numbers aren’t ‘more realistic’ - but they aren’t less realistic either: they’re just different,” said Andersen.

He points out that census information provides enough data to allow for more detailed analysis. However, the NHS does not provide enough effective data at a lower level, such as a reserve, for accurate desegregation.

“All we’ve gotten from Statistics Canada is broad level trends,” he said. “We do know that the Aboriginal population doesn’t seem to be dropping, but we also don’t know with the new methodology how much of the increase is an actual increase as opposed to ... people who didn’t formally identify themselves in the Census are now beginning to do so.”

Andersen holds that the full meaning of the figures won’t be known until the information on socio-economic status and similar data is released.

“It’s premature to start making pronouncements about what the numbers actually mean,” he said.

The statistics will be used for public policy, he notes, but they are only one factor that will be taken into consideration when policy is drawn up on such issues as education and training.

“Statistics are just one tool in a much larger tool box. Stats rarely make or break policy,” he said.