Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 16th, 2008

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Nancy Karetak-Lindell]

You have some time left, two minutes.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Given the offer made by Mr. Éric Guimond earlier on, I will give you the opportunity to perhaps ask him a question in your mother tongue.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Nancy Karetak-Lindell]

Actually, I'll use English.

My question is, what would be the reason some communities do not want to participate in the surveys? When we put out the other legislation with the financial institutions, it was very well supported by the bands; they wanted to be able to get the right statistics in order for them to be able to lobby for increased funding.

Is it because of who is doing the survey that they feel they might not be in ownership of that information? I'm just wondering what would be the reason some of those bands would not participate.

[Jane Badets]

Well, you'd probably have to ask them individually. What we often hear is that they feel they've already given the information to government. There may be a feeling that they may not be fully trustful of the process. So there may be a variety of reasons. It may be they feel a sovereignty, that it's their territory.

Our approach and Statistics Canada's approach have been very respectful. We do ask permission to go. We've been doing this for many years, of course, and as you see, those who absolutely refuse are declining. We have found that our success in that has been to work with the communities over time to develop statistical capacity, to provide them training, to show them how they can use their information for their own needs, for their own community. We have a series of what we call aboriginal liaison officers across Canada, and they work in between the censuses as well with these communities to show them the importance, to get the information back to them.

So we've found it's very progressive and it's taken time, over time, to convince people, but that's the best way, and we'll continue to do it. That's what we have found that works best, and we'll see where we are for 2011.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Nancy Karetak-Lindell]

Thank you.

I think Mr. Kramp wanted to continue on with the next government round.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you very kindly.

The one figure I'm really looking for more explanation on, and I think we as the government are going to have to have some information on, of course, is the exponential growth--basically a 500% increase in the last 25 years, which is just unbelievable. Obviously we recognize some of the reasons, and birth rate is one. They are coming to a decision that they wish to be included in that particular demographic as aboriginal.

Do we have a breakdown as to the actual numbers of reasons as to why? What percentage is birth? What percentage might be due to a charter eligibility? What percentage might be due to judicial decisions on land claims? There are a number of reasons people might all of a sudden find it more fortuitous, more advantageous, more moral, more real--matrimonial property rights, and so on. Why do we have such a significant growth? As an example, does the population growth, the natural birth rate, account for 200,000 or 100,000 of that million-plus increase?

The reason I'd like to know is, where are we going with this? Are we on a pattern to continue this escalation at the same rate, with no sign of abatement? Or do we have a number of aboriginal people who are basically...? Have we topped out on those who wish to be included in that demographic? How do we as a government plan unless we know where we're going?

We need your help on this. What are your thoughts?

[Eric Guimond]

In terms of a detailed list of factors influencing people's decisions to report themselves as first nation, Métis, or Inuit at a particular census and not for another one, it's impossible really to know. One can very generally speculate, and I think you were going in that direction. One factor is, well, I was in the closet with my aboriginal affiliation; now I'm coming out and I'm saying I'm first nation, Métis, Inuit. Or it might be opportunistic. Or it might just be popular, trendy, kind of cool around the coffee table at Christmas to say, “I have a first nation ancestor”, and start reporting it in the census. Those three elements play into it.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Most of these are all intangibles, though, and so it's very difficult for a department, for INAC, for the Government of Canada to try to come up with a realistic proposal of how to deal with this file unless we have a better handle on the reasons for the dramatic escalation. We have to have some form of predictability, other than that the arrow's going up on a 12-degree angle. We're going to have to have more information on this.

Do you think it would be reasonable to look into this reasoning so we could come up with a bit more...? Can we define those factors you just mentioned in a better manner?

[Eric Guimond]

The registered Indian and Inuit population growth is not shooting to the ceiling right now. The Métis and non-status Indian population is, because it's based on self-declaration. It's the absence of criteria. This was part of an earlier conversation with respect to the finding of what is Métis. And non-status Indian is again based on self-identification. There are no solid criteria.

So a population there is a pole of attraction for those who want to report an aboriginal affiliation but are not recognized elsewhere. The example you have given is a really good one.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

But we have a 20-year line here, so this 20-year line.... Sure, for these last five years it's is a bit more dramatic, but still it's a 20-year positive line. But the line obviously is in excess of birth rate, so we need to have a better handle on this.

I make the suggestion that this might be something for this committee to look at, with a view to making a recommendation at some point so we could either give direction to government and/or seek your assistance to get to the bottom of this.

[Eric Guimond]

Ten years ago I published for the first time on that very topic of growth, highlighting the importance of focusing on that growth. I totally agree with you.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

[Dan Beavon]

I'd add one more thing. We do have another independent source of data with respect to the population counts. Our department has an Indian registry, which is what we use for our actual forecasts of the population for our models, and that falls under section 6 of the Indian Act. It goes back to the legacy of Bill C-31 in 1985, but we maintain a legal database of who is legally entitled to be registered as Indian or not, and that's not a question of self-identification.

[Jane Badets]

I just wanted to add one thing. We have a demography division and we do look at the growth in terms of demographic versus non-demographic factors, but the non-demographic factors are unknown.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Nancy Karetak-Lindell]

I can probably add to that. Many people would never have identified themselves as aboriginal in the past. What that tells me in self-identification is that some people are now feeling proud to admit they're aboriginal, and I think that says a lot about the last 20 years. People would never have self-identified, because we were made to feel it was nothing to be proud of. I think a change in attitudes would be a factor in this case.

We're down to the NDP, but since we don't have anyone from the NDP here, I've got Mr. Storseth, and I don't know if anyone else wants to speak. That would take us into the third round, but I'll go into the government round again for Mr. Storseth. Five minutes, please.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. You look good in that spot.

I want to thank you for coming.

This is a door-to-door census, door knocking. It's not sampling, correct?

[Jane Badets]

On-reserve and in the north, it is 100%, but outside those areas it is a sample, one in five.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I'm looking at this form, and it's well known that this disproportionately affects the identification of some of our poorer and homeless populations. They're harder to count. In 1996 we couldn't get into and do a census stat on 77 communities. How many communities are there, all told?

[Jane Badets]

In terms of reserves and settlements, about 700. It's 633.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

So you're talking over 10% of the communities we couldn't get into, to be able to include their data all told, in that time period.

Is it possible that we are now having significantly larger numbers because of the advance in our survey techniques and our ability to get into some of these communities, that we're having far more accurate numbers in those communities in on-reserve populations? They're far more accurate now than they were in 1996, but that's only logical, right?

[Jane Badets]

In terms of being purer--communities we'd never get into and don't have any data for--we credit our success to our program of aboriginal liaison officers working with the communities over time and showing them how to use the information for their own benefit.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

That is a logical conclusion and helps us go to the next step. Mr. Guimond has already talked about the fact that birth rates are not the sole contributor to the increase in the population. Where I think we're fairly accurate is in the increase in the off-reserve population that's been identified.

The community I'm from in the Edmonton area has a tremendous increase in off-reserve aboriginals. We also have a tremendous increase in Winnipeg, another city that I'm very familiar with. This is predominantly not because these people wouldn't identify in the past--although the chair does have a point with some of that. The culture is being embraced. A lot of these people who are coming from the reserves into the communities are very strong in their culture and identify with these communities.

I think the bigger question here is why we're having such a dramatic increase in our urban aboriginal population. The numbers are foggy in the first nations communities because of our problems in getting into them in the first place, but what is not unclear is the fact that we have a dramatic increase in our urban aboriginal population. What are the contributing factors to that? I've seen studies that show they have a higher standard of living, better education, and better housing than on reserve. Are these contributing factors to such a dramatic increase in the off-reserve aboriginal population?

[Eric Guimond]

It's certainly not migration that's contributing to the explosion we're seeing of the aboriginal population in urban areas.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Do you have some documentation for that?