Province of Manitoba » Aboriginal and Northern Affairs » News & Publications » Publications » Aboriginal People in Manitoba 2000 » Chapter 1 : Demographics » Focus : Aboriginal Identity Versus Origin/Ethnicity

Aboriginal People in Manitoba 2000 Chapter 1 : Demographics

Prior to 1996, users of Census materials were instructed to classify as Aboriginal any respondent indicating Aboriginal origins/ethnicity (in whole or in part) and/or Indian Act registration. In 1996 a new question was added to the Census that asked if respondents identified themselves as belonging to one of the three Aboriginal groups recognized by Canada’s Constitution: i.e.(North American) Indians, Metis, and Inuit. Based on the new definition, respondents are counted as Aboriginal if they indicate Aboriginal identity and/or Indian Act registration.

Nationally in 1996, approximately 1.1 million people indicated Aboriginal origins, either as a single response or part of a multiple response to the Census ethnicity question. But only 800,000 indicated that they identified with an Aboriginal group. Following release of the 1996 Census,the federal department of Human Resources Development commissioned an analysis of the characteristics of the 300,000 Census respondents who indicated (partial) Aboriginal origins but not identity.

Statistics Canada reported that this group, which is concentrated outside the Prairie provinces and especially in large urban centres like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, differed substantially from the 800,000 Aboriginal identity population. In fact, in terms of education, employment and income, they were on average better off not only than the Aboriginal identity population but also than the average Canadian.¹⁸

This group was included in the Aboriginal Census population in 1991 and before — often as “non-Status Indians,” although they did not identify themselves as such. This distorted Census results, leaving researchers and policy makers with the impression that Aboriginal people were on average better educated, more likely to be employed and had higher incomes than was in fact the case.

19,095 people in Manitoba indicated Aboriginal ancestry but not identity in 1996. In 95% of cases they indicated Aboriginal as part of a multiple response and, in 5% of cases, indicated Metis or North American Indian as a single response. However, the difference between Manitoba Aboriginal counts using the two definitions is only 13,000, not 19,000.¹⁹

Much attention has been paid to the exclusion of the non-identity group from the Aboriginal population, as defined by Statistics Canada. But there is another aspect that has attracted little attention. Use of the ethnicity question appears to have excluded from previous Aboriginal counts a substantial group of people not registered under the Indian Act but reporting Metis or North American Indian identity.

This is probably due to how “complicated” the ethnicity question is and the different ways that people understand the question when filling out their Census forms. It may be that people are filling in a single origin response when a multiple response would be more appropriate, or it may simply be that the origin/ethnicity question is particularly unclear to people of mixed ancestry or people in multi-ethnic families. Statistics Canada, obviously unsatisfied with its clarity, has changed the wording of this question in each of the past four Censuses.

In Manitoba, about 45,000 people indicated Metis identity in 1996 (including registered Indians who indicated Metis identity). Of these, most also indicated Metis as either a single response or part of a multiple response to the ethnicity question. However, about 40% gave a single response to the ethnicity question and in 6,070 cases (13%) the single response given was something other than “Metis.”²⁰ Under pre-1996 Census definitions, these 6,070 Metis-identity people would not have been counted as Metis.

Of these, 2,985 were located in Winnipeg and 3,085 outside. 1,860 wrote in “Canadian ”as a single origin/ethnicity response in 1996. No one knows exactly how to interpret the “Canadian” response, though these people would not have been tabulated as Metis, or even Aboriginal, on earlier Censuses had they responded in this way. Similarly, 1,020 Metis-identity people gave “French” as a single response, and 615 gave “English.” They also would not have been considered Metis or Aboriginal by previous Censuses regardless of their actual ancestry.²¹

A further 2,155 Metis-identity people wrote in a “North American Indian” nationality as their sole response, many in the north but also 880 in Winnipeg. On earlier Censuses,these people would have been considered either Status or non-Status Indians, not Metis.

In short, the 1996 change from ancestry to identity as the basis for Aboriginal counts not only excluded significant numbers of people previously considered Aboriginal. It also included for the first time significant numbers who were previously not considered Aboriginal, or else were ascribed to the wrong Aboriginal group. This includes non-Status Indians as well as Metis.

The 1996 Census population consists of those persons who consider themselves to be Aboriginal. Earlier versions consisted of those persons considered by Statistics Canada to be Aboriginal. The Aboriginal populations captured by the 1991 and 1996 Censuses are, to a significant degree, two different populations, with close to 25,000 Manitobans having been reclassified from Aboriginal to non-Aboriginal or vice versa.