Aboriginal People in Manitoba 2000Chapter 1 : Demographics |
 |
Trends in Population Distribution
At the present time, it is problematic to use Census data to analyze trends in population distribution, for a number of reasons: (1) the change in the Census definition of “Aboriginal;” (2) apparent undercounting in 1991, which resulted in an average of 30% more people found on-reserve in 1996 than in 1991, and similar increases for Status Indians in other Census Districts;9 and (3) increased efforts in the 1990s to register children under the Indian Act at an earlier age.
As an illustration of the data integrity issues, the 1996 Census found 45,750 of 128,910 Manitoba Aboriginal people residing in Winnipeg, or 35.5%. This compares to about one quarter in 1981, 33% in 1986, and 39% in 1991. Because of the definition change and more complete coverage on reserve, it cannot be assumed that there was an actual drop in Winnipeg’s share of the Aboriginal population between 1991 and 1996. Rather, the trend is one of a steady growth over the past 20 years, which is now perhaps levelling off. This will, however, not be entirely clear until the Census of 2001 is released.
Similarly, 47,215 Indian Band/First Nation members were counted on-reserve in 1996 in Manitoba’s 62 First Nations, comprising 58% of Status Indians in Manitoba. This is down from 78% in 1971, but up from 52% in the 1991 Aboriginal People’s Survey. This seems to indicate that a long-term trend of migration from rural to urban centres has reversed in the 1990s, but because of problems in the 1991 data, it does not prove it.
Bearing in mind the problems connected with comparing 1991 Aboriginal-origin data and 1996 Aboriginal-identity data, here are the Census numbers for each of the larger Aboriginal groups in Manitoba:
Most strikingly, the non-Status population appears to have fallen from about 15,000 to about 5,000. This is partly to the change in definition (by which persons who report Indian ancestry but do not self-identify as North American Indian are dropped from the 1996 count), and partly due to the effects of Bill C-31. Approximately 4,300 C-31 reinstatements of Status were processed between 1991 and 1996, 10 which now appear in the on and off-reserve Status numbers in an approximate 25/75%ratio.11
The Metis population apparently grew by 5%, which approximates the natural growth rate minus any minor effects of Bill C-31. There is no evidence that the Metis group is growing in Manitoba because of any increased propensity by individuals to self-identify as Metis — in fact there may be a small contrary trend. Rather, Metis counts are relatively stable (but see FOCUS:ABORIGINAL IDENTITY VS. ORIGIN/ETHNICITY).
By contrast, the reserve Status population appears to have increased by 28% and the off-reserve by 34%. Over a five-year period, increases on this scale cannot be explained by natural growth, migration or the effects of C-31, and are clearly the result of undercounting in 1991 and/or more comprehensive Indian Act registration of young children. In other words, the 1991 Census significantly undercounted the Status Indian population, and much of the apparent growth in this population between 1991 and 1996 is artificial.12
The fact that the Manitoba Indian registry numbers on-reserve for this same period increased by “only” 19% in 1991-96 further supports this conclusion.
Because the earlier Census data is suspect as a reflection of real Status (and non-Status) Indian populations, the best source of Census data for analysis of recent distribution trends is the question on the 1996 Census which asked respondents where they lived five years earlier.
As seen in Figure 1 below,the period 1991-96 saw a net migration of 1,405 Status Indians to reserves, of whom 645 migrated from Winnipeg and 760 from other off-reserve locations. There was also a net migration of 705 Status Indians to Winnipeg from off-reserve locations. There was no significant trend between northern and southern Manitoba.
Winnipeg gained 60 Status Indians through intraprovincial migration in 1991 to 1996. However,if migrants to and from other provinces are included, there was a net outflow of some 200. The net outflow of Status Indians from Winnipeg to reserves is consistent with recent analyses on the national level, where there has been a total net outflow from large urban centres of about 5,000 persons in 1991-96.13
As for the Metis, there was a net migration of 295 persons out of Winnipeg to other locations in Manitoba, of whom 200 moved to the north. So, on balance, Winnipeg actually lost several hundred First Nations and Metis people through migration in this period.13 This apparently reverses trends seen since the 1950’s.
Given this small but significant out-migration trend, it follows that any growth in Winnipeg’s Aboriginal population during the 1990s has been the result of internal demographic trends, and that the growth of this population relative to Winnipeg’s non-Aboriginal population is strictly a matter of a higher birth rate among Winnipeg’s Aboriginal people. Because this rate of natural growth is only approximately 2% per year, it may be that some Winnipeg Aboriginal population projections that have appeared in recent years have been exaggerated.15
A 1996 study of 1986-1991 Aboriginal migration patterns suggests why earlier in-migration trends may have reversed. Clatworthy et al found a net in-migration of 5,540 to Census Metropolitan Areas nationally, much less than had been expected. There was also a net in-migration to reserves of 9,540, and a net migration from CMA ’s to reserves. Both CMA’s and reserves received most of their in-migrants from rural areas and smaller urban centres.16 There is only a limited Aboriginal population in these areas due to decades of rural depopulation. Therefore, at some point out-migration from large cities to reserves will cease to be compensated by in-migration from other off-reserve locations.
While the long-term population trend is not presently as clear as it has seemed in recent decades,there are indications of considerable “churn” in population patterns;
for example,people moving back and forth between urban and reserve or rural areas. Later sections of this book dealing with specific socioeconomic issues will highlight new and existing data regarding sections of the Aboriginal population who are relatively mobile or migratory.
