copy the linklink copied!Chapter 2. Profile of Indigenous Canada: Trends and data needs

Canada has a diverse and growing Indigenous population

Around 1 670 000 individuals in Canada self-identify as Indigenous people, corresponding to 4.9% of the total population in 2016. Among the three groups, First Nations are the largest (at 60% out of total), followed by Métis (36%) and the Inuit population (4%).4 First Nations people, Métis and Inuit across Canada have diverse histories and cultures and speak numerous languages (around 70 as reported in the 2016 Census).

The First Nations population includes those who are members of a First Nation/Indian Band and those who are not, and those with or without registered or treaty Indian status under the Indian Act. There are more than 600 unique First Nations/Indian Bands in Canada. Around three-quarters (76.2%) of the people who self-identify as First Nation have registered or treaty Indian status (Statistics Canada, 2017[7]). Of those with registered or treaty Indian status, 44.2% lived on reserve in 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2017[7]). Both the on-reserve (+12.8%) and off-reserve (+49.1%) First Nations population grew from 2006 to 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2017[7]).

The Indigenous population represents a larger part of the total population in the West and North

The Indigenous population is concentrated in certain provinces and territories across Canada ranging from as little as 2% of the population in Prince Edward Island (2 730 persons) to as much as 86% in Nunavut (30 545 persons) (Figure 2.1). Across Canada, the First Nations population is mostly concentrated in the western provinces; the majority of Métis reside in Ontario and the western provinces, largely in metropolitan areas; and three quarters of the Inuit reside in Inuit Nunangat (Statistics Canada, 2017[7]).5

Ontario has the largest Indigenous population in terms of total size; approximately 374 400 peoples in Ontario self-identified as Indigenous in 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2017[8]). Ontario is also the most populous province in Canada and as such, while large overall, the Indigenous population constitutes just 3 percent of the total population of the province. However, within the northern Ontario, the Indigenous population comprises 17% out of total (Statistics Canada, 2017[9]). Ontario is home to 127 federally recognised First Nations communities, 109 of which are in Northern Ontario, includes 34 remote reserves. Canada’s northern territories have the highest share of Indigenous population out of the total population, at 86% (Nunavut), 51% (Northwest Territories) and 23% (Yukon).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.1. Indigenous population distribution by TL2 regions and territories, 2016

Note: Indigenous population includes individuals who have identified themselves as Indigenous in the 2016 Census of Population survey.

Source: Statistics Canada, (2016[10]), 2016 Census of Population.

Indigenous populations are experiencing a greater pace of demographic change than that of non-Indigenous populations in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2015[11]). From 2006 to 2016, the Indigenous population increased at four times the rate of the non-Indigenous population. Furthermore, the number of individuals who self-identify as Indigenous grew across all groups between 2001-2016: the Métis population doubled and the First Nations grew and Inuit populations grew by respectively by 60% and 44% (Figure 2.2).

The rapid population growth of Indigenous peoples can be explained by two factors. Firstly, Indigenous peoples tend to have higher fertility rates than non-Indigenous people, particularly in the case of First Nations people and Inuit.6 Secondly, response mobility played a key role in the demographic growth of non-Status First Nations and Métis population during 1996-2006 (Caron-Malenfant et al., 2014[12]) (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, 2012[13]). Response mobility refers to the phenomenon where individuals changed their identity from one census to the other (intergenerational response mobility) and where ethnic identity of parents and child differ from each other.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.2. Population change by Indigenous group, 2001-2016

Note: Figures refer to individuals who identified themselves as Indigenous (single identity).

Sources: Calculation based on data from Statistics Canada (2001[14]), 2001 Census of Population; Statistics Canada (2011[15]), 2011 National Household Survey; Statistics Canada, (2017[8]), 2016 Census Population Tabulations, https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/index-eng.cfm.

The Indigenous population is predominantly rural and remote

Roughly 60% of Indigenous peoples lived in predominantly rural areas in 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2016[10]). This was 33% more than the share of non-Indigenous peoples living in predominantly rural regions (see Box 2.2 for an explanation on the OECD TL3 regional typology). In predominantly rural regions, 46% of the Indigenous peoples lived in rural remote regions and about 15% in rural regions close to cities. In contrast, 27% of the Indigenous peoples lived in predominantly urban regions in 2016. This was 30 percentage points less than the share of non-Indigenous Canadians living in predominantly urban regions. The shares of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples living in intermediate regions is quite similar; 14% of the Indigenous peoples lived in intermediate regions (2 percentage points less than non-Indigenous).

Low density and remote areas influence resident outcomes. These areas have less diversified economies, more limited access to services and educational opportunities, and face higher transportation costs. In many rural communities, costs of transportation are very high or even for some, precarious (e.g., remote fly-in communities which may only be accessible by winter road). Rurality and remoteness are correlated with such factors as lower labour market attachment, lower educational attainment rates and poorer health outcomes (OECD, 2016[16]).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.3. Share of Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations by type of TL3 region, 2016

Note: Based on OECD TL3 regional typology: PRR: Predominantly rural remote; PRC: Predominantly rural close to city; IN: Intermediate; and PU: Predominantly urban.

Source: Statistics Canada (2016[10]), 2016 Census of Population.

While a large share of the Indigenous population lives in predominantly rural remote regions, these regions are also experiencing population decline in recent years. The share of Indigenous peoples in rural remote regions has gradually decreased from 63.8% to 59.9% between 2001 and 2011 and from 59.9% to 58.8% between 2011 and 2016 (Figure 2.4). In contrast, the share of Indigenous peoples in urban areas rose from 24.1% to 26.9% between 2001 and 2011 and to 27.4% 2016.

The demographic evolution of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people by type of region is in similar: rural regions are shrinking and urban regions are growing. However, population decline in rural regions is lower for Indigenous peoples than for non-Indigenous people. Response mobility plays a key role in shaping these trends for the Indigenous population. For example, the number of self-reported Métis population in Atlantic Canada experienced a meteoric surge in recent years, with Indigenous population growth rates as high as 237%, 199% and 198% in St. John's, Halifax and Moncton (Statistics Canada, 2017[7]).

The Aboriginal population is growing much faster than the non-Aboriginal population, especially in Canadian cities. From 1996 to 2006, ethnic mobility was the primary factor in that growth. This held true for the Métis in particular. Métis have typically been recognised as a mixed-descent identity—a feature which has been critiqued by some as leading to an ever widening racial category that undermines the Métis Nation as a self-governing Indigenous nation with associated rights (Andersen, 2014[17]).

In terms of geographical mobility (i.e., the movement of people from one place to another), it is important to note that the First Nations population continues to grow both on and off reserve. Therefore, while mobility contributes to some urban population growth, there is no widespread phenomenon of persons moving from reserves to cities (Statistics Canada, 2017[7]).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.4. The change in distribution of Indigenous population by type of TL3 region, 2001-11 and 2011-16

Note: Based on OECD TL3 typology containing four categories: predominantly urban (PU), intermediate (IN), predominantly rural close to a city (PRC) and predominantly rural remote. (PRR).

Sources: Calculation based on data from Statistics Canada (2001[14]), 2001 Census of Population; Statistics Canada (2011[15]), 2011 National Household Survey; Statistics Canada, (2017[8]), 2016 Census Population Tabulations, https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/index-eng.cfm.

The Indigenous population is younger on average…

Canada’s Indigenous population is younger on average than the non-Indigenous population (see Figure 2.5). The average age of the Indigenous population was 32.1 years in 2016 while the average age of non-Indigenous population was 40.9 years. Among the different Indigenous groups in Canada, Métis (34.7 years) are on average older than First Nations people (30.6 years) and Inuit (27.7), who are the youngest (Statistics Canada, 2017[19]).

The Indigenous population has a much higher share of children and youth than the non-Indigenous population. Indigenous children, aged 14 and under, represent almost one-third (27%) of the total Indigenous population while the corresponding figure of non-Indigenous peoples stands around 16%. In contrast, the share of the elderly population, aged 65 and above, represent much larger share of non-Indigenous population (16%) than Indigenous population (7%). The share of working age (15-64) of the Indigenous peoples is at the same level as the working age of non-Indigenous peoples; the Indigenous working age population is around one-percentage point smaller than the share of non-Indigenous working age population.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.5. Age pyramid, 2016

Note: Based on OECD TL3 typology: predominantly urban (PU) and predominantly rural (PR).

Source: Statistics Canada (2016[10]), 2016 Census of Population.

…particularly in rural areas

The Indigenous predominantly rural population is younger than the predominantly urban one (28% versus 24% for people aged 14 years and under), and has a slightly smaller working age population (64% versus 69%) and higher share of elderly persons (38% versus 31% aged over 65) (Figure 2.5). It is as yet unclear what the implications of these demographic and geographic trends will be for the future—e.g., whether younger populations on reserve will move to urban areas in the future or stay where they are leading to increases in the rural working age population. Regardless, Canada’s young Indigenous population will form an important part of the country’s future leaders, employees and entrepreneurs.

The Centre for the Study of Living Standards estimates that over the 2011-2036 period, the contribution of Aboriginal people to future labour force growth in Canada may be “as high as 21 per cent under the scenario that age-specific participation rates between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population close by 2036 and response mobility continues as current rates” (Drummond et al., 2017[20]). In terms of regional variations, this contribution may be as high as 83.1 per cent, 72.9 per cent and 52.2 per cent in the three territories (Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories), Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, respectively (Drummond et al., 2017[20]).

While life expectancy is increasing across all Indigenous groups, it remains lower than the non-Indigenous population—by as much as 15 years

Life expectancy at birth, defined as the average number of years a new-born child would live if prevailing patterns of mortality at the time of its birth were to stay the same throughout their life. The life expectancy rates of Indigenous peoples in Canada are lower than that of non-Indigenous peoples in Canada for both men and women. In the case of Inuit men, life expectancy is 15 years lower than that of non-Indigenous men (Table 2.1). Across different Indigenous groups, Métis have the highest life expectancy rate (77 years), followed by First Nations (73 years) (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2017[21]).

Health is a crucial element of well-being. Good health enables individuals to participate in the activities that they value, and to pursue the lives that they want to live. Therefore, it affects people’s ability to take part in the formal and informal economy, acquire new skills and to live good quality lives. Across a wide range of indicators, the health of Indigenous peoples remains poorer than that of non-Indigenous Canadians with higher rates of infant mortality, suicides (particularly among youth), chronic diseases and infectious diseases, especially for those residing on reserves in rural areas (Richmond and Cook, 2016[22]). Self-assessed health status corroborates these disparities (Box 2.3).

copy the linklink copied!

Box 2.3. Perceived health status of Indigenous peoples

The results from perceived health indicators align with the life expectancy rates. Indigenous peoples are less likely to report their health as very good or excellent than non-Indigenous peoples are (Gionet and Roshananfshar, 2013[23]). In 2012, 54% of the Indigenous peoples reported their health as excellent or very good, which is 10 percentage points lower than non-Indigenous peoples (Gionet and Roshananfshar, 2013[23]). Among different Indigenous groups, the Inuit were most likely to report health as excellent or very good (55%) and First Nations living on-reserve were less likely to report their health as excellent or very good (44%) (Gionet and Roshananfshar, 2013[23]). Worryingly, the health status of Indigenous adults has deteriorated from 2001 to 2012 while socioeconomic inequalities in health among Indigenous Canadians have increased between First Nations and Métis groups (Hajizadeh et al., 2018[24]).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.6. Percentage of Indigenous persons self-reporting “excellent” or “very good” health

Persons aged 6 and older

Note: Atlantic includes Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.

Sources: Statistics Canada (2019[25]), Perceived General Health by Aboriginal Identity, Table 41-10-0001-01, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=4110000101; Gionet, L. and S. Roshananfshar (2013[23]), “Select health indicators of First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit”, in Health at a Glance; Hajizadeh, M. et al. (2018[24]), “Socioeconomic inequalities in health among Indigenous peoples living off-reserve in Canada: Trends and determinants”, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HEALTHPOL.2018.06.011.

Rates of educational attainment for Indigenous peoples are lowest for those residing in rural and remote areas

Levels of educational attainment strongly influence labour force participation. It is associated with better employment possibilities and higher incomes and other aspects of individuals’ well-being beyond material considerations. For instance, there is a positive relationship between better health outcomes and education as well as satisfaction in life in more generally.

Indigenous peoples in Canada have lower rates of educational attainment than their non-Indigenous peers and sizable literacy, numeracy and technology skill gaps, which impacts wages (Hu, Daley and Warman, 2017[26]). These gaps are greatest in the northern territories (Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon) and also in the province of Alberta. It is estimated that the direct cumulative economic benefits to Canada of closing the Aboriginal educational attainment gap between 2011 and 2031 could be as large as $261 billion (Calver, 2015[27]).

Indigenous peoples across Canada face a number of barriers to accessing high quality education in the places where they live. Reflecting this, the educational attainment rate is lowest in rural and remote regions (at 43%), representing a gap of -14% when compared to non-Indigenous peers in these regions. According to the OECD regional TL3 typology, in rural regions close to cities, the rate of educational attainment of Indigenous persons is higher (at 51%) and the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peers is narrowed (-0.8%). Rural and remote communities have more limited educational offerings and may require that students complete secondary schooling and higher in larger towns and cities. Such is the case for example for the remote fly-in community of Neskatanga First Nation in Ontario where children past the ages of grade 8 complete their studies in the city of Thunder Bay, often residing away from their parents to do so (300 kilometres away). Beyond remoteness, socioeconomic conditions, the use of a Eurocentric curriculum and the legacy of residential schools are other factors that have contributed this educational gap (Charbonneau, 2017[28]) (see Box 2.4 on residential schools in Canada).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.7. Educational attainment of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples by province and territory, 2016

Note: Educational attainment rate refers to individuals aged 15 years and over with at least secondary education completed.

Source: Statistics Canada, (2016[10]), 2016 Census of Population.

Indigenous peoples have made gains in high school and postsecondary completion in the past decade

The share of Indigenous persons obtaining a secondary degree or higher has increased over the past decade (2006-2016). The greatest increase in educational attainment rates of Indigenous peoples was reported in intermediate regions (6 percentage points) and in rural remote regions (5 percentage points). Respectively, the change in education rates in rural close to cities and urban areas has been a more moderate (3-4 percentage points). However, due to the change in educational attainment rates of non-Indigenous peoples, the gap in education between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples have remained unchangeable in rural remote and urban regions. In rural regions close to cities, the gap has reduced by 1 percentage points and increased by 1 percentage points in intermediate regions (between 2006-2016).

Data from the Aboriginal Peoples Survey (Aborigional Peoples Survey, 2017) provides additional context. It indicates that the percentage of the population that completed a postsecondary certificate diploma or degree was highest for the Métis (45%), followed by First Nations persons living off reserve (40%) and Inuit (28%). There is no data for First Nations persons living on reserve. This rate of completion increased for all groups between 2006-16, but was highest in the case of the Métis (increasing by 6%) followed by FN living off reserve (4%) and Inuit (3%). Meanwhile, the percentage with less than a high school diploma dropped in all cases by a similar amount (8-9 percentage points). Again, there is large variation between groups with the Inuit having the highest percentage of the population with less than a high school diploma (52% in 2016), followed by FN off reserve (32%) and Métis (25%).

Earnings gaps persist and are highest in the northern territories

The persistent and large gaps in average income between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples are well documented (Maxim et al., 2008[33]). These differences are partly explained by lower Indigenous labour market force participation rates, lower rates of educational attainment, higher unemployment rates and higher rates of participation in the informal economy (e.g., the social and subsistence economy) (Natcher, 2018[34]).7 Geography also plays a role, with there being fewer employment options for those residing in rural and remote areas. The NAEDB estimates that the economic loss resulting from the gaps in economic outcomes between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Canadians is as much as $27.7 CAN billion annually (equivalent to around 1.5% of the Canadian economy) (National Aboriginal Economic Development Board, 2017[35]).

Income gaps vary by region across Canada and are largest in the northern territories (Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories). Employment in the northern territories are concentrated in the public sector and in the mining, oil and gas extraction industries. These jobs are frequently filled by those from out-of-province and have higher than average salaries to attract mobile labour and expertise. In terms of income gaps, Nunavut stands out; the median after tax income of the non-Indigenous population is significantly higher than that of the Indigenous population (approximately $84 000 versus $23 000). This is partly explained by the prevalence of public service employment, which is the largest source of employment in Canada’s most recently established territory (est. 1999). Of all government employees in Nunavut, just over half were Inuit (52%) in 2017; this is significantly below the share of the Inuit population in the territory overall (86% of total population) (Nunavut Statistics, 2018[36]). It is an ongoing goal of the Nunavut government to increase the share of Indigenous employment in the public service to better reflect the society it serves.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.8. Median after tax income by province and territory, Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, 2016

Note: Median after-tax income for individuals ages 15 years and over.

Source: Statistics Canada (2016[10]), 2016 Census of Population, Catalogue no. 98-400-X2016170.

First Nations incomes are lowest on-reserve

Among Indigenous populations, First Nations people living on-reserve experience the largest earnings disparity, followed by males who identify as First Nations and live off-reserve (Lamb, Yap and Turk, 2018[37]). Off-reserve First Nations incomes are higher than those on-reserve. While on-reserve First Nations had a median after tax income of income of $18 222 in 2015, off-reserve First Nations had a median after tax income of $30,983 (Statistics Canada, 2018[38]). This can be due to a range of factors including a lack of access to markets and capital. But the historical legacies of the 1876 Indian Act also loom large. The Indian Act gave the government control of First Nation economic and resource development and land use and treated First Nation peoples as "wards of the state.” It is only in recent decades that this is changing and that First Nations are gaining control over their resources and lands, generating improved employment opportunities on reserve.

Related to this, Indigenous populations face higher rates of relative poverty, especially young First Nations people on reserve. Four out of every five First Nation reserves have median incomes that falls below the poverty line.8

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.9. Percentage of Indigenous and non-indigenous people in each income decile group (after-tax), 2016

Source: OECD (2018[39]), “Percentage of Indigenous People in each income decile group (after-tax), 2016”, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300477-graph14-en.

Non-market activities are also important

Market activities capture just one part of Indigenous income and material wellbeing; informal and subsistence-based economies also play an important role. This may include exchanging services and skills without monetary compensation alongside household provisioning such as harvesting, processing and sharing food. These activities are often characterised as meeting the basic needs of households—however, they may also fill broader cultural and spiritual roles, reinforcing Indigenous knowledge and links to kinship and community (Natcher, 2018[40]; Simpson, 2018[41]).

Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples Survey provides some indication of the importance of informal and subsistence based activities, termed “other labour activities” in the survey.9 Most (59%) First Nations people living off reserve and Métis over the age of 15 reported participating in other labour activities during the year. In order of prevalence these activities include: hunting, fishing or trapping; gathering wild plants; making clothes or footwear; making carvings, drawings, jewellery or other kinds of artwork (Statistics Canada, 2018[42]).

These types of activities are particularly important for the Inuit, most of whom reside in Inuit Nunangat where there is extreme cold for much of the year, high food prices and high rates of food insecurity (Huet, Rosol and Egeland, 2012[43]). Over three quarters (78%) of Inuit aged 15 or older participated in other labour activities during the past year with around 16% undertaking these activities to supplement their income. Over half (56%) reported hunting, fishing and trapping in the past year and 42% gathered wild plants. Making clothes or footwear and making carvings, drawings, jewellery or other kinds of artwork was also common (27% and 18%) respectively (Statistics Canada, 2018[44]).

Indigenous labour market outcomes are poorest in northern and remote areas

The Indigenous population in Canada has historically had lower labour force participation and employment rates, and a higher unemployment rate than the non-Indigenous population. These gaps in employment rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations in Canada are lowest in the Atlantic Provinces and the greatest in the northern territories (Nunavut, North West Territories, and Yukon) (Figure 2.10). Geography and accessibility influence these outcomes, with Indigenous persons living in remote northern locations having fewer employment opportunities than those nearer urban agglomerations which have more diversified economies. Among Indigenous groups, the employment rate of Métis was the highest, followed by Inuit and First Nations peoples (Statistics Canada, 2017[8]).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.10. Employment and unemployment rates by province and territory, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, 2016

Note: Employment rate refers to employed population aged 15 years and over.

Source: Statistics Canada (2016[10]), 2016 Census of Population.

Indigenous employment was severely impacted by the 2008 economic recession

The employment rates of Indigenous people residing in predominantly rural regions in Canada ranged from 46% to 56% in 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2017[8]). Among these, the employment rate of Indigenous people residing in rural regions close to cities was 10 percentage points higher than those in rural remote regions. Employment rate of Indigenous peoples in urban areas stood at 58% in 2016 and the gap between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people is much lower than in rural regions (at 4 percentage points) (Statistics Canada, 2017[8]).

The employment rates of Indigenous peoples decreased over the past decade and Indigenous people were more severely affected by the 2008 economic recession. The largest decrease is recorded in rural regions close to cities where Indigenous peoples’ employment rates decreased from 60% to 56% in 2006-2016. Similarly, the employment rate of Indigenous peoples in urban regions decreased from 61% to 58% over the same period (Statistics Canada, 2017[8]).

The change has been more moderate in rural remote and intermediate regions. On average, the employment rate decreased from 48% to 46% in rural remote regions and from 55% to 54% in intermediate regions between 2006-2016. An identical pattern is detected when looking at the change of employment rates of non-Indigenous peoples. In rural remote and urban regions the employment rate of non-Indigenous peoples decreased by 2 percentage points (from 59% to 57% and from 64% to 64%) and in rural regions close to cities the decrease was 3 percentage points (from 63% to 60%) between 2006-2016 (Statistics Canada, 2017[8]).

The unemployment rate of Indigenous peoples by province/territory varies from 12.7% to 27.6% (see Figure 2.10). Indigenous peoples in rural remote regions are more likely to report unemployment than Indigenous peoples in other regions. These trends correspond to the unemployment patterns of non-Indigenous peoples; non-Indigenous peoples in rural remote regions have the highest unemployment rate (9%) while those living in urban regions have the lowest (7%) (2016) (Statistics Canada, 2017[8]). The difference in the unemployment rate between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples is the largest in rural remote areas, where the unemployment rate of Indigenous peoples is 19% and the unemployment rate of non-Indigenous peoples is 9%, and smallest in urban region, where the unemployment rate of Indigenous peoples is 12% and non-Indigenous peoples is 7%.

Between 2006-2016, the unemployment rate of Indigenous peoples increased. In urban regions, the unemployment rate increased from 10% to 12%; in rural regions close to cities from 11% to 13%; while in rural remote regions, the unemployment rate of Indigenous peoples has remained the same at 19% (Statistics Canada, 2017[8]). Overall, individuals living in rural regions of Canada have lower rates of educational attainment and poorer labour market outcomes. Moreover, inequalities between on-reserve First Nations populations and other communities in Canada have been reported in educational outcomes, housing quality, poverty and health services, among others.

A shortage of jobs was the most commonly self-reported barrier to employment

Responses from the 2017 Aboriginal Peoples Survey illuminate self-reported barriers to finding employment. For all groups surveyed (Métis, Inuit and FN living off reserve), a shortage of jobs was the most commonly reported barrier to employment. Beyond this, there are differences revealed by age and gender. For example, younger Inuit were more likely to report not knowing where to look for work and not know what kind of job to look for than those of core working age. A lack of work experience was another commonly reported barrier to employment among Inuit surveyed. This highlights the importance of labour market training and assistance and job training/work experience.

Similarly, young FNs living off reserve self-reported a lack of work experience and not knowing where to find jobs as a major barrier; also, about half of women (51%) and 40% of men reported that not having enough education or training for available work made it difficult to find work. First Nations people in Saskatchewan (51%) and British Columbia (44%) were more likely to report that not having the means of transportation to get to available jobs caused them difficulty in finding work than those in Atlantic Canada (28%^E), Quebec (29%) and Ontario (33%). Métis self-reported similar obstacles to employment to that of FN living off reserve and Inuit, citing a lack of work experience and not enough education and training as common barriers.

Data from the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) indicates that Aboriginal workers with higher levels of education (bachelor degree or higher) were less likely to be overqualified than their non-Aboriginal counterparts; but Aboriginal workers with lower levels of education (less than university level) were more likely to be overqualified than non-Aboriginal workers (Park, 2018[45]).

Indigenous peoples have higher propensities for employment in health care, social assistance and public administration than non-Indigenous persons; but they are underrepresented in business services and manufacturing

The top three industries where Indigenous peoples are employed are health care and social assistance (13%), retail trade (12%) and public administration (10%) (Figure 2.11). Indigenous people are more likely to be employed in the health care and social assistance sectors, and in public administration, construction and accommodation and food industries than non-Indigenous people. The share of Indigenous employment in public administration is particularly high compared to non-Indigenous (at 10% versus 6%). Two factors explain this. Firstly, public administration employment is highest in the northern territories, which is mostly covered by modern treaties, and many First Nations in the Northern territories also have self-government agreements. Secondly, Indigenous peoples are underrepresented in "knowledge industries"—e.g., professional, managerial and technical occupations—which tend to require post-secondary education and generally pay better. In this category, there is a 4-percentage point gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.11. Share of employment by industry, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, 2016

Note: Industry by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

Source: Statistics Canada (2016[10]), 2016 Census of Population.

Between 2006-2016, Indigenous employment in the public administration, and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sectors increased at a national level. In contrast, the Indigenous employment rate in tertiary sectors such as health care and social assistance and retail trade declined between 2006 and 2016.

At the occupational level, the Indigenous population has the highest share of employment in sales and service occupations (27%), followed by trades transport and equipment operators (19%), and education, law and social and community government services (14%). The share of employment in these occupational categories is slightly higher than that of the non-Indigenous population (24%, 14% and 12% respectively). As noted above, Indigenous peoples are underrepresented in knowledge professions including business, finance and administration and management and natural and applied sciences in comparison to non-Indigenous shares of employment in these occupations (Figure 2.12).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.12. Share of Indigenous and non-Indigenous employment by occupation, 2016

Persons aged 15 and older

Note: Employment by National Occupational Classification (NOC).

Source: OECD (2018[46]), “Employment distribution of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous identity populations by occupation, persons aged 15 and older, %, 2016”, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300477-graph12-en.

Rates of self-employment among Métis are almost double the Canadian average

In 2016, 85% of Métis worked in a permanent job and of these, 14% reported being self-employed (Statistics Canada, 2017[47]). This rate of self-employment is significantly higher than that of the Canadian average (at 8.3%) and stands out above that of FN living off reserve (11% self-employed) and Inuit self-employment (6%). Of those that were self-employed, 43% owned an incorporated business and over a third of self-employed persons had employees. In contrast, rates of incorporation and employees are lower for FN living off reserve and Inuit.

The vast majority of Indigenous self-employed did not receive outside assistance for their businesses in 2017; 91% of Métis did not receive outside assistance for their business, while for FN living off reserve and Inuit this figure stood at 88% and 72% respectively (Statistics Canada, 2017[47]). Where individuals did receive outside assistance, their sources differ. For example, Métis were mostly likely to use private banks, while FN off reserve were most likely to receive assistance from an Aboriginal Government, Aboriginal organisation, or Aboriginal financial institution.

Indigenous communities have systematically lower level of community well-being than non-Indigenous ones

Well-being has gained attention as a regional development policy concept because it captures a number of factors that are important to the competitiveness of places, and helps to reinforce the importance of complementarities between different sectoral policies.

Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) has developed a Community Well-Being Index that measures the well-being of Indigenous (namely First Nations and Inuit) and non-Indigenous communities across Canada. It is based on the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index (HDI) and it encompasses indicators such as education, labour force activity, income and housing, leaving out indicators measuring the level of social capital or environmental factors.

Communities are scored based on how they perform in these socio-economic indicators for years 1981-2016 (5-year periods). Prior to its first release, there was no method in place to track the level and development/ progress of Indigenous community socio-economic well-being. The community well-being index is the first attempt to measure systematically Indigenous well-being at a community level in Canada.

On average, results from the community well-being index demonstrate that Indigenous communities have systematically lower scores than non-Indigenous peoples with respect to income, education, housing and labour market outcomes. In 2016, the average Indigenous communities index score (the average of First Nation and Inuit communities’ score) was 58.6; this is 18.9 lower than the index of non-Indigenous communities. At the national level, the greatest differences are found in the indicator for housing where the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities is around 27.1 points. Differences in income are also large (21.9). Indigenous communities have the smallest difference to non-Indigenous communities in labour force participation (15.9).

When comparing the community well-being index of First Nations and Inuit communities at a national level, the results that Inuit Communities have 4.7 higher score than First Nation Communities (35.5). However, there are dimensions, in which First Nations communities tend to perform slightly better than Inuit communities (e.g. education and housing). Inuit communities have generally higher levels of incomes (67.8) and higher rates of labour force participation (75.6) than First Nations communities (53.5 and 69.2).

Indigenous community well-being improved between 1981-2016

The Community Well-being Index (CWB) for Indigenous communities has improved in the past decades. In 2011-16, the CWB index improved for Indigenous communities in general by 1.9 percentage points. In this time, the change of CWB was greater in Inuit communities than in First Nations communities. The CWB index for Inuit communities increased by 3.7 from 36.5 to 40.2, whereas the increase in the CWB index of First Nations Communities was 0.9 points lower. When considering non-Indigenous communities, the Community Well-being Index increased by 2.4 in 2011-16. Generally, Inuit communities have a higher index rating than First Nations communities (on average 4 percentage points).

Despite of the improvements in the overall index scores for Indigenous communities, the gap to non-Indigenous communities have not narrowed. In fact, the gaps for all four components had widened. The widened gap is a result of higher growth rates of the components for non-Indigenous communities.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.13. Change in the community well-being index, Canada, 1981-2016

Source: Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (2019[49]), The Community Well-Being (CWB) Index, https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/56578f58-a775-44ea-9cc5-9bf7c78410e6 (accessed on 19 September 2018); 2016. See: Resource Development and Well-being in Northern Canada https://www.iap-socent.be/sites/default/files/ANSERJ%20%2807%29%20104-123.pdf.

Subjective assessments of well-being highlight the importance of social, cultural and land use issues for First Nations

Empirical assessments of wellbeing can be complemented by subjective assessments—that is, how community members themselves perceive their well-being. A study by Kant et. al (2014[51]) of multi-domain subjective well-being of two Canadian First Nations communities highlights the importance of considering both approaches. Through a structured questionnaire administered to households, community members themselves identified key domains of well-being and contributing factors, and helped specify models linking overall well-being, domains’ satisfactions and contributing factors (Kant et al., 2014[51]). The social, cultural, and land use (SCLU) domain was found to be the most important contributor to well-being, and SCLU factors contributed to all other domains’—Education, Employment, Income, Health, and Housing—satisfactions. Within this key domain, land laws, traditional diets, social ties, and cultural sites were viewed as critical elements.

Social, cultural and land use factors are not included in CIRNAC’s Community Well-being Index; this is perhaps in part because these indicators can be more difficult to measure. However, as the study by Kant et. al. (2014[51]) demonstrate, these factors are deemed to be of highest importance by community members themselves.

Many Indigenous communities face infrastructure deficits and poor housing conditions, particularly those that are rural and remote

Infrastructure—transportation, energy, telecommunications, housing, health and education infrastructure and vital amenities like sewage and water—are fundamental to a community’s well-being and its prospects for economic development. As large landmass with relatively low population density and cold winters, Canada faces a number of infrastructure challenges, particularly in small, rural and remote communities.10 Indigenous peoples, notably First Nations living on reserve and remote Inuit communities, disproportionality face inadequate infrastructure.

A Canada-wide picture of the extent of this infrastructure deficit for Indigenous communities is not available; however, separate studies indicate the scope of the problem. For example:

• Data from Indigenous communities energy database reveals 70% rely on Diesel fuel generation which is unpredictable and expensive (Natural Resources Canada, 2019[52]).11

• First Nations communities are 90 times more likely to be without piped water (United Nations, 2009[53]) and half of the water systems on First Nations reserves pose a medium or high health risk to their users (Webster, 2015[54]) (see Box 2.6 for discussion).

• A reported 40% of Indigenous peoples living in Canada's far north reside in overcrowded households and mould is a frequent problem (Webster, 2015[54]).

• 8% of adults living on-reserve in 2008–2010 lacked any type of sanitation system (FNIGC, 2011[55]).

Of the 100 lowest ranking communities in the Community Wellbeing Index, 98 are First Nations communities. Inadequate infrastructure including overcrowded and mould-ridden housing, unsafe water systems, expensive and unpredictable energy infrastructure are major factors contributing to these low rankings (Webster, 2015[54]).

Canada’s commitment to achieving the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development presents an opportunity to improve Indigenous community well-being indicators

The government of Canada is committed to implementing the 2030 Agenda which includes commitments to eradicating global poverty, achieving gender equality, fostering economic growth, protecting the environment, and building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, among other objectives. Five federal organisations have been assigned the lead on coordinated efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda; CIRNAC is one of these lead departments. It is responsible for supporting Indigenous peoples and the North in the implementation of the sustainable development goals that are directly linked to its mandate.

To date CIRNAC has matched a sample of its priorities with 16 sustainable development goals, including some targets (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2018[61]). As reported in the 2018 Auditor General of Canada’s 2018 spring report, Canada is presently ill-prepared to track and monitor the implementation of the SDG targets. For example, the report finds that: sustainable development is narrowly defined; there is no federal governance structure in place that articulates roles and responsibilities between departments; there is no federal communications plan or engagement strategy; there is no national implementation plan and few targets; and there is no system to measure results or progress toward national targets (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2018[61]). The respective lead departments have committed to progress on developing a coordinated response across all of these areas. Given the large differences in socio-economic outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, the SDG targets present an opportunity to development robust indicators drawing on data from across multiple departments.

Digital connectivity

Canada lags behind in digital connectivity compared to other OECD countries. For example, mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants stood at 72 in Canada and 102.4 on average across the OECD in 2016 (OECD, 2017[63]). Moreover, despite significant investments by the public and private sectors to support broadband deployment, access to high-speed internet is lowest in rural and remote areas, and continues to lag behind for minority groups including the Inuit and First Nations peoples (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2018[64]).

Digital connectivity differs among Indigenous groups according to their geographical location and group age. Most (93% in 2017) Métis have access to the internet at home. A lower share of Métis in rural areas have internet access at home (88%) compared to those in small (93%), medium (94%), and large population centres (95%). Across Canada, home internet access among Métis was higher in BC (96%), than in Quebec (89%), the Northwest Territories (90%) and Saskatchewan (90%). Access also varied across age groups as 98% of young Métis had internet access, compared to 95% of core working age Métis and 86% of older Métis (Statistics Canada, 2018[29]).

While data from the Aboriginal Peoples Survey indicates that the percentage of the population with access to home internet is higher for Métis and First Nations off-reserve than that of Canada overall, this figure should be interpreted with caution as it does not account for the quality of the bandwidth. For example, Groups such as the First Nations Technology Council in British Columbia report that 75 percent of First Nations communities in British Columbia do not have adequate internet (e.g., they are unable to download a pdf attachment in an email due to slow connectivity) (First Nations Technology Council, 2018[65]).

Indigenous businesses demonstrate innovation and – while generally small – they have a higher propensity to export

According to the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS), around 43 000 First Nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada own businesses across Canada (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2016[1]). Indigenous entrepreneurship is difficult to profile due to a lack of national data, particularly for businesses on reserves. One of the best sources for Indigenous business data is the National Aboriginal Business Survey which is conducted by the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business.12 The 2016 survey captured data on 1 101 Indigenous business owners across Canada: 2% of whom were Inuk; 46% First Nations and 50% Métis. The majority of the captured Indigenous businesses were male owned (63%) and most of the businesses had no employees (64%) (Table 2.6). Of all of the businesses surveyed, roughly a third (27%) were registered on a reserve. The vast majority of these businesses were concentrated in Ontario (26%), followed by British Colombia (21%) and Alberta (14%) (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2016[1]).

A higher share of Aboriginal businesses introduce new products/services, or new production/delivery processes relative to the broader Canadian small business sector—thus implying a higher propensity to innovate, particularly in manufacturing industries (TD Economics, 2017[66]).13 Aboriginal businesses are also reported to be more than twice as likely to have introduced a new product or service over the prior three years, and nearly three times more likely to have brought in new ways of doing things than the broader Canadian business sector (TD Economics, 2017[66]). While Aboriginal businesses tend to be small, and like all small businesses, have a relatively lower propensity to export; among small businesses, aboriginal businesses are more than twice as likely as all small businesses to export and sending their products to a broader geographic base than other small exporters (TD Economics, 2017[66]). This may be related to their location. Firms in more rural or remote areas need to seek larger markets for their services and products.

The majority of Indigenous firms surveyed in the National Aboriginal Business Survey are focussed on professional scientific and technical services (13%), other services (12%), and construction (12%). Following this, art (10%) and retail trade (8%) are the most common industries. Business in the remaining industries comprise less than a 5% share each (Figure 2.17).

Access to financing is one of the most commonly reported barriers to business development

The majority (65%) of Indigenous business owners rely on personal savings as a main source of financing their businesses on an initial and ongoing basis (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2016[1]). More than half reporting finding sources of financing for their business as “very” or “somewhat” difficult and this is deemed to be a growing issue that impairs their businesses growth and development (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2016[1]). Moreover, when a lender or programs for financing are found, 45% of businesses owners report challenges meeting lender requirements. Related to this point, only three Indigenous entrepreneurs out of ten report having a formal business plan (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2016[1]).

In terms of business structures, the majority (61%) of Indigenous entrepreneurs are sole proprietary and are unincorporated (73%) (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2016[1]).14 Sole proprietorship—where the business and the operator are the same—is the most common structure for new business across Canada because it relatively informal and easy to create. Tax law treats a sole proprietorship business as an income source for the proprietor; consequently, the proprietor is personally liable for all functions and debts of the business. Incorporation is usually done for more mature business (those with annual revenue of around CAN $50 000 or more) and requires meticulous financial statements and yearly audits.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 2.17. Share of Indigenous businesses by Industry, percentage out of total, 2016

Source: Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (2016[1]), Promise and Prosperity: 2016 Aboriginal Business Survey, https://www.ccab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CCAB-PP-Report-V2-SQ-Pages.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2018).

Businesses located on reserves have unique characteristics

Probability analysis indicates that Aboriginal businesses are more likely to sell their goods and/or services outside Canada (to US or other countries) if: they are in the arts/entertainment or accommodation and food services industries; have older owners, and have accessed a government loan which may simply reflect that there are specific government programmes targeted to on-reserve (e.g. to address a lack of housing collateral). On the other hand, the likelihood is lower for businesses located on-reserve and for those with no employees (Table 2.8) are.15

It is further found that the probability that a business locates on a reserve is lower: if the business owner has a higher school level; if the business has no employees; or if the business owner identifies as Métis (Table 2.9).

The majority of Indigenous firms registered under the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business (PSAB) are micro enterprises

An additional source of information on Indigenous businesses is the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business (PSAB). PSAB aims to increase the number of Aboriginal firms participating in the federal procurement process. The PSAB is open to all Aboriginal businesses and since its establishment in 1996 has awarded more than 100 000 contracts to Aboriginal suppliers with an estimated value of CAN $3.3 billion (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2019[67]).16

Of the 1 069 registered businesses, the majority are microenterprises with 9 employees or less (78%) are small enterprises with between 10-49 employees (7%). Most are located in Ontario (30% out of total) of British Columbia (25% out of total) and the services industry is the largest industry represented among these firms.

Only five enterprises are large, with over 250 employees (1%) and just 15 are medium enterprises with between 50-249 employees (out of total). Only 16% of Indigenous businesses registered in the PSAB export.

Despite quality statistical data on Indigenous peoples in Canada, gaps remain

The quality and reliability of data related to the Indigenous population is generally high in Canada compared to other OECD countries with Indigenous populations and draws on consistent and therefore comparable definitions of Indigenous groups. Despite this, data gaps remain and the need for improved data is well recognised. There are ongoing efforts by the government of Canada to enhance both the quality and timeliness of Indigenous related data and to support and partner with Indigenous-led organisations in order to enhance their own data collection efforts. There are also a variety of Indigenous organisations in Canada that collect and disseminate statistical information. Among the various data gaps, there is a clear need for better information on Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurship and Indigenous economies more generally. There is also a need to better capture community well-being and to develop indicators that are useful to communities themselves.

There are two main sources of national statistical information on Indigenous peoples in Canada: the national Census of population and the Survey on Indigenous Peoples. The Census is the basic demographic and socioeconomic information on all Canadians and it provides data at the national, regional, and community levels. There are a number of limitations with the Census that make it difficult to have a complete picture of Indigenous peoples and economies. For example, identity information has been collected differently over the years (e.g., the wording and format of the Aboriginal questions were different between the 2006 and 2011 Census) rendering them less comparable and changes were made to the definition of reserves.17 2016 was the first time that Statistics Canada released results showing specific First Nations ancestry groups (Statistics Canada, 2018[73]).

The Survey of Indigenous Peoples comprises two separate surveys:

• The Aboriginal Peoples Survey covering First Nations living off reserve, Inuit and Métis, which has been conducted by Statistics Canada since 1991, with an off-reserve focus since 2006. Approximately 44% of the status First Nations population lives in reserve areas and the majority of the Inuit populations live in Northern communities; therefore the surveys (other than the Census), leave out an important part of the Indigenous peoples in Canada. Consequently, some estimates for the First Nations people are imprecise. It is noted that the collection of on-reserve information is part of the mandate of FNIGC—thus, this FNIGC plays a role in filling this data gap.

• The First Nations Regional Social Survey of on-reserve populations (including northern First Nation communities) which is conducted by the First Nations Information Governance Centre. The name of this survey changes to reflect the theme of the survey cycle. For the previous survey cycle focused on education and employment, the title of the on-reserve survey was “The First Nations Early Childhood, Education, and Employment Survey” (or FNREEES). For the current survey cycle focused on participation in the economy, the title of the survey is the “First Nations Labour and Employment Development Survey” (or FNLED).

Taken together, the two surveys collect data on a different theme every survey cycle, along with core indicators that can be tracked over time. The survey initiative is funded by Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and Employment and Social Development Canada and was provided with permanent funding through Budget 2019.

In terms of other surveys, the Community Well-Being (CWB) database provides data on economic activity for 673 Indigenous communities. However, it only includes consistent data for 357 of these communities every five years between 1991 and 2016 when there are over 1 000 First Nations and Inuit communities in Canada (Feir et al., 2017[74]). Moreover, it measures only four components of well-being: education, employment, housing, and income. While these are important aspects of well-being, the index did not include critical variables such as health, environment, and especially language, and culture which First Nations have identified as critical to well-being (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2018[75]). There are many reasons for the lack of ability to follow CSDs over time, such as changes in geography for communities, rules regarding confidentiality, and resulting suppression, etc.

Other national surveys conducted by Statistics Canada such as the General Social Survey, Labour Force Survey and Canadian Community Health Survey include questions that allow for Indigenous identifiers; however, while Indigenous people are identified and selected, there are not always enough Indigenous people included in the sample to provide high quality estimates below the national level and/or disaggregated for the separate Indigenous groups (First Nations, Métis, Inuit). Furthermore, most of these surveys do not collect information either on reserve or in northern communities. About 44% of the status First Nations populations lives in on reserve areas and majority of the Inuit populations lives in Northern communities, therefore the surveys other than Census of population, leaves out important part of the Indigenous peoples in Canada and as a result, some estimates for the First Nations people or the Inuit are imprecise. Table 2.10 outlines the main surveys and the Census which either include Indigenous identity or that are entirely focused in Indigenous peoples and communities in Canada.

While Statistics Canada produces the majority of statistical studies that include Indigenous identity, there are other institutions which have also produced focused studies. For example, the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC, est. 2005) is an incorporated non-profit organisation operating with a special mandate from the Assembly of First Nations’ Chiefs in Assembly. In collaboration with Regional Partners, FNIGC gathers data on a wide range of issues important to First Nations people and the communities they live including a community survey, regional early childhood, education and employment surveys and a labour and employment and development survey. The First Nations University (FNU, est. 1976)—a post-secondary institution—has also conducted a number of surveys on Indigenous issues over the years such as an Urban Aboriginal Peoples Survey which profiles that population across 11 Canadian cities. A final survey of note is the Aboriginal Business Survey which is conducted by the Canadian Council of Aboriginal Business—a non-profit organisation—that works to improve the economic self-reliance of Aboriginal communities while assisting corporate businesses. The Aboriginal Business Survey is conducted with Aboriginal small businesses across Canada and is presently in its third round.

Improving the quality of Indigenous data on businesses and entrepreneurship and community well-being

Statistics construct power relations – they shape social realities, conveying a powerful truth –and as such, need to be very thoughtfully employed, especially for groups that have been traditionally marginalised (Walter and Andersen, 1992[2]). In effect, the realities that statistics convey influence the design and evaluation of public policies that impact Indigenous peoples and communities. For example, in Canada (as in other countries like Australia), census data is used to construct the funding formulas for Indigenous employment and training programmes and data indicators influence the design and delivery of a range of other programmes and services. As such, it is important that Indigenous perspectives are included in the design and administration of these instruments so that they may be better structured to reflect Indigenous priorities and values such as culture and traditional knowledge and capture the unique aspects of the Indigenous economy.

New surveys and methods are needed in order to capture community-led enterprises

While existing datasets can be strengthened, there is a broader issue that self-employment is a poor proxy for Indigenous entrepreneurship. Self-employment does not capture community led economic activities—e.g., First Nations development corporations, social enterprises. Such economic activities are incredibly important, particularly for First Nations. As noted by Sengupta et al. (2015[80]) the legal organisational structures followed by different Canadian governments have been proven ill-suited for capturing Indigenous social enterprise. There is no nationally recognised status for social enterprise and they take a range of forms—e.g., non-profit or for-profit entities, or incorporated as cooperatives. A large number of Indigenous organisations exhibit characteristics of cooperatives but are not formally registered as such and some may earn revenues in the grey market (Sengupta, Vieta and McMurtry, 2015[80]). The Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business surveys Indigenous business, but does not include any types of non-profit organisations. In sum, these entities are important to the Indigenous economy and moreover to cultural reproduction, self-determination and yet, very little is known about their scale, and scope beyond individual case studies.

Dedicated surveys are needed to capture the important activities and contributions of Indigenous community-led enterprises. This is a sensitive issue. Indigenous communities may not want to share the details of their business activities widely. Any such undertaking should thus be led by an Indigenous organisation (or organisations) and requires consent of participating communities from an early design phase. Some steps towards improving data on community-led enterprises are:

• Support Indigenous organisations to develop a typology of community-led business entities. Doing so would form the basis of comparative research/survey on this topic. This could be conducted in partnership with government and universities, but should be led by Indigenous organisations themselves.

• Develop protocols for data protection and privacy for the collection of community-led enterprise data. As an initial step, protocols need to be in place in order to ensure confidentiality and address the need to balance the desire for a strong understanding of business dynamics while protecting information. Communities could be involved in variable selection and structure.

More robust and timely community well-being indicators are needed

Well-being is a multi-dimensional concept that captures both material and non-material factors, focussing on people’s quality of life. The values and perspectives of Indigenous peoples have generally not been incorporated into countries well-being frameworks and policy agendas. Current debates and perspectives about how to better reflect Indigenous values and perspectives in the Sustainable Development Goals are a good example of this (see Box 2.9) (ILO, 2015[81]). Only a few countries, such a New Zealand, have created frameworks that focus on the well-being of Indigenous people from their perspective (Stats NZ, 2013[82]). The incorporation of Indigenous values and perspectives into well-being frameworks is vital as it helps policymakers to better tailor policies to the needs and aspirations of Indigenous peoples, and monitor progress over time.

Canada’s Community Well-Being (CWB) index includes various indicators of socio-economic well-being which are combined to give each community a well-being "score". These scores are used to compare well-being across First Nations and Inuit communities with well-being in non-Aboriginal communities over time. It is the only index that produces comparative community level data. This data could be an important policy tool to understand conditions in Indigenous communities and how they fare over time. However at present, this index data is not adequately robust and the release of the data post census has been slow (over 2 years).

A 2018 report by Canada’s Auditor General underscored this point; it describes the indicators as “limited”, the sampling methods “poor” and engagement with Indigenous organisations and communities in the production of the index as inadequate (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2018[75]). It noted that Indigenous Services Canada has access to volumes of available data from multiple sources which it could draw on to more comprehensively compare well-being relative to other Canadians and across First Nations communities. For example, data from the First Nation Community Profiles with information on housing needs and water quality, Employment and Social Development Canada data about participation in skills training for Indigenous and Health Canada information about First Nations health (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2018[75]).

Indigenous Services Canada has responded to the 2018 audit with a commitment to improve this indicator alongside its engagement practices with Indigenous organisations. Some steps to meet these goals are:

• Work with other federal government departments and Indigenous organisations to expand the range indicators and incorporate other data sources. As noted above, Canada’s Community Well-Being Index considers only a limited number of variables. These should be expanded to include both objective and subjective elements and alongside indicators on civic participation and governance, environmental quality, and accessibility to services. Data on Indigenous income would be more robust if it included indicators that capture the nature of Indigenous hybrid economies (where they exist), food security and cultural values. Several variables such as housing need, water quality etc., many of which are available from other Federal government sources. The Index would also be improved by incorporating provincial data and data from non-governmental sources (e.g., First Nations Information Governance Centre, NACCA).

• Add subjective assessments of well-being and include indicators that are important to Indigenous peoples such as culture and traditional knowledge. Subjective measures of overall quality of life are built into numerous surveys in Canada and around the world, and are increasingly analysed and used as indicators of human well-being and social progress. Yet, even in Canada, federal surveys exclude Aboriginal peoples on-reserve and, in general, there are very few data sources on life satisfaction among Aboriginal respondents (Barrington-Leigh and Sloman, 2016[83]). For example, First Nations on reserve respondents to life satisfaction questionnaires in Canada have reported that total income is not appropriately measured by the standard income question (Barrington-Leigh and Sloman, 2016[83]).

• Develop a specific Index to better understand the dynamics among Indigenous communities. While Canada’s Community Well-Being Index focusses on Indigenous and non-Indigenous community comparability at present, an additional Indigenous-focussed index with a broader array of variables could provide a useful tool for understanding community conditions among Indigenous communities wherein the addition of non-Indigenous comparables might otherwise limit culturally relevant questions.

A 2018 Data Strategy Roadmap for the Federal Public Service report reinforces several of these points (Government of Canada, 2018[84]). One of the stated goals of therein is to recognise that Indigenous Peoples have an inherent right to self-determination, co-develop with Indigenous partners distinctions-based strategies to advance Indigenous data governance and institutional capacity. One promising example of how such co-development is proceeding is the work of Indigenous Services Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to co-develop a National Outcomes-Based Framework comprising indicators of mutual interest to ensure accountability in the context of a new fiscal relationship.

Enhancing community data for decision making

Data also needs to be collected at a local level because each Indigenous community, and the information that is relevant for them, is different. Indigenous peoples and communities’ vision on economic development and well-being also may differ from the view of the dominant population. Issues such as connection to the land, culture and kinship relationships tend to be more important. Therefore, it is crucial that Indigenous peoples defines measures and methodologies that provide a basis for more informed decisions about realising their aspirations and objectives for development.

Data at the community level encounters a common problem to small areas studies. For example, those communities that had a global non-response greater than or equal to 0.5 (or 50%) are not available in the 2011 Community Well-Being database in accordance with Statistics Canada data quality standards for the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS). For confidentiality reasons, data about populations in small places needs to be supressed. If there is community buy-in, communities may wish to undertake their own studies on such topics as community wellbeing, or, as is increasingly common in Canada, so called ‘leakage studies’ that look at how community members spend money and whether there are greater opportunities to increase spending within the community itself. However, this is not the case of environmental indicators, which can also be important for community development. For example, First Nations communities are beginning to survey their traditional lands in order to create GIS maps of the assets that are important to them. This data will not necessarily be shared with others outside of the community. The government of Canada has supported geospatial mapping in Indigenous communities through the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CDGI) User Need Assessments and the Geomatics Community of Practice and Land Use Planning Initiative.

The government of Canada has supported Indigenous data sovereignty by providing funding to such groups as the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) that administers surveys on topics that are important to Indigenous Canadians. FNIGC receives its funding through agreements with Health Canada, and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, and Employment and Social Development Canada and the organisation partners with regional organisations and governments across Canada to design and administer surveys (e.g., on health outcomes, early childhood education, and employment).

These are important initiatives, but there is also a need to focus on how communities themselves can have better local data for decision-making. Indigenous organisations and communities need to be empowered to collect data about their people, land and resources and businesses to support local planning. Enabling Indigenous peoples’ “data sovereignty” will ensure better alignment between data collection and the needs and aspirations of Indigenous peoples, and also empower them to use it to inform decision-making. The example of Yawuru Nations “Knowing our Community” survey (Western Australian), serves to illustrate this point (Box 2.11).

It is important that local data for Indigenous decisions makers be supported by capacity building efforts such as training community members on how to use existing data and how to collect their own indicators, including the use of GIS technologies. The Government of Canada could help to enhance Indigenous community-level data for decision making by:

• Including or expanding community capacity building and training activities in federal funding for Indigenous organisations. The Government of Canada partners with Indigenous organisations in some cases and also funds them in order to develop new questionnaires and data sets on a wide range of issues. This is important work that has led to more robust indicators on a wider range of variables. However, more could be done to support Indigenous community members and decisions makers through community capacity building and training initiatives. Developing and supporting networks of GIS practitioners should be a key part of this work given how central land use and environmental considerations are to community and economic development.

• Developing user friendly data portals designed for local decision makers. Data sets need to be accessible and easy to use, while respecting confidentiality requirements. More actions are needed to translate data (often contained only in reports) into a useable and searchable platform comparable across years.

The Canadian government is strengthening its engagement with Indigenous organisations regarding data collection—but much remains to be done

There are several federal departments and agencies that collect and produce relevant data for Indigenous peoples and communities. The quality of their data and their commitments to effective engagement practices are mixed.

Canada’s national statistical agency—Statistics Canada—has made strides in terms of consultations with national Indigenous organisations in recent years (Morris, 2016[95]). The organisation interacts with a number of National Indigenous Organizations (NIOs) at the working level where NIOs help provide context to Statistics Canada’s analytic research work on Indigenous populations. For example, in anticipation of the 2021 Census of Population, Statistics Canada held over 70 face-to-face discussions with Indigenous groups across the country over 2017/2018 (in addition to public online discussions) (Statistics Canada, 2018[96]). Through its Aboriginal Liaison Program it also works with First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities and organisations to help them determine their data needs, help them find and understand the data that is available for their communities, and keep them informed about Statistics Canada information activities. Aboriginal Liaison Advisors are located across each Province and Territory. The organisation interacts with a number of NIOs at the working level where NIOs help provide context to Statistics Canada’s analytic research work on Indigenous populations. These are positive developments and are similar to practices undertaken by the national statistical bodies in the United States and Australia. However, they do not extend to the inclusion of Indigenous persons and organisations within the governance of statistical matters impacting them as in Australia where an advisory body has been established—for example, the Roundtable on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Statistics (Box 2.12). As such, Statistics Canada’s engagement practices remain more at a working level, addressing issues on an ‘as needed’ basis.

Statistics Canada is just one department among many that develops indicators important to understanding Indigenous peoples and community characteristics. Virtually every federal department has specific responsibilities related to Indigenous–Crown relations and as such, collects some data. Some of the most important federal departments in this regard are Indigenous Services Canada and CIRNAC as well as Health Canada and Natural Resources Canada. Federal departments are working in different ways to strengthen their data on different Indigenous populations and to improve their engagement with Indigenous communities and key stakeholders. This is a work in progress. For example, as has been previously noted, the Auditor General’s 2018 spring report has highlighted improvements that could be made to Indigenous Services Canada. Specifically it noted the inadequate measurement of well-being; the limited use of available data; incomplete reporting on well-being and a lack of meaningful engagement (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2018[75]). Similarly, much work remains to be done in tracking and benchmarking the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2030—including the work of lead departments like CIRNAC (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2018[61]).

The Auditor General’s 2018 call to the Government to make better use of the data that it is collecting and to work directly with First Nations has reopened the debate about role that an overarching federal authority dedicated to Indigenous data issues could play (Assembly of First Nations, 2018[99]) (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2018[75]). Canada’s creation of such an entity was short lived. The First Nations Statistical Institute (FNSI)—a federal crown corporation—was created through legislation passed in 2005, became operational in 2008 and was abolished in 2014.21 It was established in order to provide statistical information on, and analysis of, the fiscal, economic and social conditions of First Nations; promote the quality, coherence and compatibility of First Nations statistics and their production in accordance with generally accepted standards and practices through collaboration with First Nations, federal departments and agencies, provincial departments and agencies, and other organisations; work with, and provide advice to, federal departments and agencies and provincial departments and agencies on First Nations statistics; work in cooperation with Statistics Canada to ensure that the national statistical system meets the needs of First Nations and Canada; and build statistical capacity within First Nation governments.

The capacity building elements—supporting the data and statistical needs of First Nations so they can better meet their own policy and planning needs—is particularly important. It was intended that this would involve outreach in order to increase the knowledge of the importance of statistics in First Nations communities as well as supporting First Nation capacity to gather, analyse and apply statistics in evidence-based decision-making processes. Despite being quasi-independent from the Government of Canada, FNSI was a Crown corporation, which provides sufficient powers to collect and adequately protect statistical information. Other organisations collecting statistics are not bound to the same privacy provisions (for example, exemption from giving a testimony with respect to personal or sensitive information before a court). One of the organisation’s first pieces of work was to organise an ongoing environmental scan of the types of services needed by First Nation people and organisations. While other agencies have competencies for Indigenous statistics – e.g., Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada has developed a centre of excellence for statistics within the Department and is supporting other First Nation organisations to conduct work — the FNSI was unique in the way that it could work across departments to bring a global view to these issues.

The federal government could strengthen its inter-departmental collaboration and capacity building activities and engagement with Indigenous organisations regarding data collection by:

• Developing a multi department strategy to coordinate on Indigenous statistics and data and work with Indigenous communities and organisations on an ongoing basis. The FNSI was one way in which to achieve this objective. There are others. The key issue is that these competencies need to coordinate across departments and engage with Indigenous groups in an ongoing basis that includes capacity building efforts. At the moment, there are separate efforts that often exist around a strategy – e.g., Arctic policy dialogue – absent ongoing coordination and the relationships that support good practices. In the United States, this coordination role across departments is filled by the Inter-governments Affairs Office (IAO) of the U.S Census Bureau and in Australia by the Centre of Excellence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Statistics (Box 2.12). It is noted that—as one of the five lead departments for Canada’s implementation of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—CIRNAC together with other federal entities are developing and communicating a governance structure to manage this process.22 This offers an opportunity for multi departmental co-ordination on Indigenous statistics as well.

• Establishing more formalised governance arrangements for the inclusion Indigenous peoples and organisations in the work of Statistics Canada through an advisory body. Statistics Canada liaises with NIOs and Indigenous communities at a working level on an ongoing basis and related to the timing of major statistical products such as the Census. These are positive practices. Adopting a more formal advisory body on these issues could regularise these practices and help the organisation take a strategic and long-term view on evolving data needs. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Roundtable on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Statistics provides one example of how to do this. The Roundtable meets twice a year to work on improving data quality, engagement strategies and statistical literacy. ABS also has an Indigenous Communication Strategy in support of its census work.

• Increasing the recruitment of Indigenous persons in Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada has the second lowest percentage of Aboriginal employees out of all Canadian departments at 2.4% (Government of Canada, 2018[100]).23 It is a general goal of the Canadian government that the public service reflect the population that it serves (see Public Service Employment Act) and the department is not meeting these goals. Statistics Canada, like other Canadian federal departments, should establish diversity goals, which include Indigenous persons. This forms, for example, one part of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Reconciliation Action Plan (2013) which specifies the goal of increasing the recruitment and retention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the organisation.