Publications
Projections of the Aboriginal Population and Households in Canada, 2011 to 2036
- 91-552-X
- Main page
- Acknowledgments
- Highlights
- Introduction
- Concepts
- Base population and projection model
- Projection assumptions and scenarios
- Cautionary notes
- Analysis of results – Population
- Analysis of results – Households
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Appendix data tables
- Glossary
- More information
- PDF version
Analysis of results - Population
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.
This part of the report presents results for the Aboriginal identity population as a whole, followed separately by results for each of the Aboriginal populations examined: Registered Indians, Non-Status Indians, Métis and Inuit (see the "Concepts" section). Each section presents the projected population growth, age structure and geographic distribution of these groups by 2036 under the various scenarios adopted.
Aboriginal identity population as a whole
In recent decades, the Aboriginal identity population in Canada has been experiencing sustained demographic growth, surpassing that of the non-Aboriginal population. In the short term at least, there is no reason to anticipate a reversal of this situation. This strong increase in Aboriginal populations is a fairly recent phenomenon and stands in contrast with the rather unfavourable demographic trends of past centuries (see Box 3).
Box 3 – Aboriginal demography: An historical perspective
The demographics of Aboriginal populations living within Canada's current borders have in past centuries been very different from those of today. The rapid increase in Aboriginal populations observed in recent decades stems from a specific historical context that differs from previous periods.
Pre-Columbian period
It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine the size of the Aboriginal populations living in Canada at the time prior to contact with the Europeans. The literature (Maynard and Kerr 2007; Romaniuc 2003; Charbonneau 1984) recognizes that a number of nations were thriving throughout Canada and that their numbers could vary depending on the resources available. British Columbia's coastal region, the Great Lakes region and the St. Lawrence Valley were more densely populated, with density progressively decreasing towards the north. The subarctic and Arctic regions were sparsely populated. Demographers who have studied this period believe that these populations had to live in a precariously stationary population system, fertility being just high enough to compensate for the high level of mortality caused by the many wars and difficult living conditions (Romaniuc 2003). Charbonneau (1984) estimated—on a purely theoretical basis and with a large number of caveats—that in the period just prior to European colonization, the Aboriginal population in what is now known as Canada might have been approximately 300,000.
Period of depopulation
Although we are not certain about the size of Aboriginal populations when they first had contact with Europeans, we do know that this contact was dramatic for the indigenous populations in Canada for a period of approximately three centuries, i.e., from the early 17th century to the late 19th century. The lengthy downturn began primarily in eastern Canada, where First Nations, including the Beothuk, Hurons, Cree and Mi'kmaq, came into contact with Europeans (Charbonneau 1984). The population decline observed in the East then shifted gradually to the western part of the country. Many of these populations were decimated within a fairly short period of time because of wars, social disorganization due to societal changes (such as the introduction of firearms, alcohol, the disappearance of the bison in western Canada and other game due to excessive hunting, as well as changes in life style), but, above all, because of the diseases the settlers brought with them, such as smallpox and measles. The size of the Aboriginal populations in Canada is thought to have fallen to an all-time low in the early 20th century to just over an estimated 100,000 (Guimond et al. 2009).
Period of stabilization and rapid growth
Whereas it was difficult to produce even marginally accurate estimates of the size of Aboriginal populations for the previous period, the first modern censuses conducted in the late 19th century—which asked respondents to state their ethnic origin—helped address this gap, albeit imperfectly. Since 1871, the Canadian censuses of population have continuously enumerated the Aboriginal population through a question on ethnic origin.
Guimond et al. (2009) warn that how Aboriginal origin (or Aboriginal ancestry) is determined has varied a great deal from one census to another, and that caution is therefore required in analyzing the demographic growth of this population. The most that can be said is that the Aboriginal ancestry population seems to have remained stable and then to have increased slowly between 1871 and 1951. It then began to increase steadily, particularly between 1951 and 2011, when it rose from 166,000 to 1,836,000. Factors that could account for this rapid growth include decreases in mortality, consistently higher fertility levels and an increased tendency in people to acknowledge their Aboriginal ancestry.
The addition of questions about registered Indian status in the 1991 Census and about identification with an Aboriginal group in the 1996 Census also permitted the confirmation of this more rapid increase in Aboriginal populations during the most recent period.
In 2011, the Aboriginal identity population was estimated at approximately 1,502,000, up 45% from 10 years earlier. On an annual basis, this population grew 3.8% during this period, a much higher rate than that of the rest of the population (+1.0%). This rapid growth rate is partly attributable to high fertility among Aboriginal populations, in particular among Registered Indians and Inuit. However, a major portion of the growth of the Aboriginal population is due to an increasing propensity in people to report their Aboriginal identity, a phenomenon also known as the intragenerational ethnic mobility of Aboriginal people.
These projections show that, as in the recent past, Aboriginal populations are likely to continue increasing at a steady pace over the next quarter-century. Under the projection scenarios that were adopted, the Aboriginal population would number between 1,965,000 (no ethnic mobility scenario) and 2,633,000 (constant fertility scenario) in 2036, representing a total increase of between 463,000 and 1,131,000 during this period (Figure 2). The Aboriginal population would grow more rapidly (between +1.1% and +2.3% per year on average) than the population as a whole (+0.9%)Note 30 under all of the scenarios. As a result, the proportion of Aboriginal people would be between 4.6% and 6.1% of the total population in 2036, compared with 4.4% in 2011.
It should be noted that the main sources of increase in Aboriginal populations appear to be very different from those of the non-Aboriginal population. While the growth in Aboriginal populations seems to stem largely from natural increase and ethnic mobility, net international migration seems to drive the growth of the non-Aboriginal population, accounting for approximately three-quarters of its increase over the projected period.
Results for the Aboriginal population mask the specific nature of the groups that compose it. Readers should remember that the Aboriginal population does not constitute a homogenous group but rather a diversified set of populations, each with its own unique characteristics.
In 2011, about half of all Aboriginal people (768,000) were people who self-identified as Registered Indians. The Métis population was 437,000, the non-status Indian population was 223,000 and the Inuit population was 63,000. There were 12,000 people who self-identified with more than one Aboriginal group or reported being a member of a First Nation/Indian band without having a registered Indian status or without self-identifying with an Aboriginal group.
Like the Aboriginal population as a whole, all Aboriginal identity groups considered in the projections would continue to increase in the coming years. Under all of the scenarios, Registered Indians would remain the largest Aboriginal identity group, representing between 1,088,000 and 1,196,000 people in 2036. Non-Status Indians would number between 245,000 and 489,000, and there would be between 531,000 and 835,000 Métis. The Inuit population would number between 86,000 and 95,000 at the end of the projection period (Table 8).
The population growth rate would also vary considerably from one group to another. During the 25-year period, the registered Indian population would increase by between 43% and 56%, while that of Non-Status Indians would increase by between 10% and 120%. For Métis, the increase would range between 22% and 91%, while for Inuit, it would be between 36% and 51%. However, the sources of population growth would differ widely among groups and these sources will be discussed in greater detail in the sections dealing with each specific group.
Age structure
The Aboriginal population's higher fertility rate in recent decades, combined with its higher mortality, has contributed to the relative 'youth' of the population's age structure in comparison with that of the non-Aboriginal population. Despite its high fertility and high mortality, the Aboriginal population has slowly aged in recent years, partly because of the long-standing increase in life expectancy.
Under the projection scenarios proposed, the Aboriginal population would continue to age in coming years (Figure 3). The median age of Aboriginal people (27.7 years in 2011) would be between 34.7 years and 36.6 years in 2036 according to the scenarios considered. If the fertility rate were to remain constant, or if intragenerational mobility were to stop after 2011, the increase in the median age would slow down. Factors contributing to the aging of Aboriginal populations include their future fertility, the projected increase in their life expectancy, and their intragenerational ethnic mobility (which adds people who are, on average, slightly older to the Aboriginal population).
In comparison, the median age of the non-Aboriginal population would increase less rapidly between 2011 and 2036, rising from 40.5 years in 2011 to 44.5 years in 2036. However, the Aboriginal population would remain younger within the projected period, as its median age would be between 8 and 10 years lower than that of the of the non-Aboriginal population (see Table A1 in the Appendix, which presents age structure indicators). This would be reflected, for example, in an overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the younger age groups. The Aboriginal population would account for between 6.0% and 8.6% of the population aged under 15 in Canada in 2036, whereas it would represent only between 4.6% and 6.1% of the total population at the end of the projection period, as noted earlier.
Geographic distribution
The geographic distribution of Aboriginal populations differs in many respects from that of non-Aboriginal populations. This difference reflects ancestral ways of life based on the availability of resources, the troubled history of Aboriginal populations' encounters with European settlers and, later, the introduction of laws supporting settlement in specific locations.
In 2011, for example, Aboriginal people were proportionally more likely to live in the Prairie provinces (40.4%) and in British Columbia (16.1%) than the non-Aboriginal population (16.7% and 13.0% respectively). In 2036, this geographical profile would not differ much under the scenarios presented. For example, under the reference scenario, 39.5% of the Aboriginal population would be living in the Prairies and 16.6% in British Columbia, compared with 18.4% and 13.2% of the non-Aboriginal population, respectively.
Over the next 25 years, under all of the scenarios adopted, the Aboriginal population would continue to increase in all provinces and territories, except in Newfoundland and Labrador if ethnic mobility were to cease after 2011. However, this growth would differ widely among the provinces and territories (as Table 9 shows) and would depend in particular on ethnic mobility levels and internal migration patterns.
In all provinces, according to the scenario that assumes that intragenerational ethnic mobility stops in 2011, demographic growth would slow significantly. In the territories, the impact of this component on growth would be limited, as it is assumed to be nil under all of the scenarios.
In comparison with the reference scenario, the scenario based on the assumption that there is no internal migration would have a negative impact on the growth of the Aboriginal population in Alberta and British Columbia, but would be more favourable to an increase of the Aboriginal population in the other provinces, especially in the Atlantic provinces.
In 2011, among the provinces, Manitoba (16.7%) and Saskatchewan (15.6%) presented the highest percentages of Aboriginal people within their populations. This would still be the case in 2036. These proportions would reach between 17.6% and 21.3% in Manitoba and between 18.5% and 22.7% in Saskatchewan by 2036. Among young people aged under 15 in those two provinces, the proportion would range between 21.1% and 28.7% and between 23.0% and 35.5%, respectively. Aboriginal people would continue to represent a large percentage of the population of the territories, accounting for 21.7% to 24.6% of the population of Yukon, 51.0% to 56.2% of the population of the Northwest Territories and 88.5% to 89.9% of the population of Nunavut.
The place of residence of Aboriginal people also differs from that of non-Aboriginal people as a lower percentage of them live in a census metropolitan area (CMA) (37.3% versus 70.6% in 2011). By 2036, the proportion of Aboriginal people residing in a CMA would increase slightly to between 38.6% (scenario with no ethnic mobility) and 42.4% (reference scenario) (Table 10). The differences in 2036 are largely due to the assumptions on intragenerational ethnic mobility, a component that tends to be more favourable to the growth of the Aboriginal population in CMAs than outside them.
The largest proportions of Aboriginal people within the population would be found in CMAs in northern Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well as in non-CMAs in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Further details regarding the Aboriginal population projected for each region are available in the Appendix tables A2.
Finally, readers should note that certain geographic areas are closely associated with specific Aboriginal populations. This is the case with Indian reserves, where a large number of Registered Indians reside, and the regions of Inuit Nunangat, where most Inuit live. Results related to Indian reserves are presented in the section on Registered Indians, while those for Inuit Nunangat are covered in the section on the Inuit population.
Registered Indians
In these projections, the registered Indian population comprises people who self-identified as Registered Indians in the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS). Although this population is considered homogeneous in this section, it is in fact highly diversified, being composed of people who belong to various Indian bands that may substantially differ from one another in both cultural and linguistic terms.
The dynamic demography of Registered Indians is also noteworthy as it relates not only to the usual demographic components (fertility, mortality, etc.) but also to rules regulating the transmission of registered Indian status as set out in the Indian Act (see the "Concepts" section). Under the current rules, certain people cannot pass on their status to their children, a fact that has a significant impact on the demographic change in this group.
Moreover, two events occurred in 2011 that could significantly affect the growth of this population, namely the enactment of the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Bill C-3) and the agreement recognizing the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation (see Box 2). As a result of these events, many people were allowed—and will be allowed in coming years—to register on the Indian Register. The 1985 amendments to the Indian Act (Bill C-31) can give an idea of the scope of the impact that this type of event can have on the size of this population over time. As a result of the amendment in 1985, 114,700 additional people were included on the Indian Register between 1985 and 1999 (Clatworthy, 2001).
In Canada, an estimated 768,000 people self-identified as Registered Indians in 2011. These individuals represented just over half of the Aboriginal population in Canada. Between 2001 and 2011, the registered Indian population rose at an average annual rate of 2.4%, more quickly than Canada's population as a whole (+1.0%).
Under all of the scenarios adopted, the population self-identifying as Registered Indians would continue to grow more quickly than Canada's population from 2011 to 2036. According to the reference scenario's results, the registered Indian population in Canada would increase by 335,000, up from 768,000 in 2011 to 1,103,000 in 2036, representing an average annual growth rate of 1.5% during the period (Figure 4). In comparison, the average annual increase for the non-Aboriginal population would be approximately 0.8%. If the fertility differences between the registered Indian population and the non-Aboriginal population were to continue in the future, the registered Indian population would increase by an additional 93,000 people, reaching 1,196,000 by 2036. The assumption that intragenerational ethnic mobility would cease would have only a marginal impact on this population.
It should be noted that the increase in the population self-identifying as Registered Indians over the next 25 years would not be linear. This increase would be much more significant from 2011 to 2016, as most people who obtained the right to register on the Indian Register in 2011—under Bill C-3 and the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation—would do so (see section "Projection assumptions and scenarios"). It is assumed that the vast majority of these registrations would come from the non-status Indian population; therefore, this group would see its growth greatly reduced during this same period (see section "Projection assumptions and scenarios").
Age structure
The registered Indian population is characterized by high fertility and a lower life expectancy than that of the non-Aboriginal population. It is, therefore, much younger than the latter.
In 2011, the registered Indian population as a whole had a median age of 26.3 years. On Indian reserves, the median age of this population was nearly two years lower, at 24.5 years. With a median age of 23.1 years, only the Inuit population was younger than the registered Indian population living on reserves.
Over the next 25 years, the registered Indian population would age, but the pace of this aging would depend on future fertility levels levels (Figure 5). The median age of the registered Indian population would increase and reach between 32.7 years (constant fertility scenario) and 35.8 years (reference scenario) in 2036. On Indian reserves, the median age of the registered Indian population would increase as well, reaching between 30.4 years and 34.4 years by the end of the projection period for the same two scenarios. Two factors could explain this aging: the registration, particularly between 2011 and 2016, of a large number of people under Bill C-3 and the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation—people who are older on average than the current registered Indian population—and an increase in life expectancy.
Nearly 3 in 10 Registered Indians (29.2%) were aged under 15 in 2011. This proportion would decrease in the coming years, more so if the fertility of Registered Indians were to converge completely with that of the non-Aboriginal population (19.5% in 2036) than if it remained constant throughout the projected period (24.7% in 2036). On the other hand, the proportion of Registered Indians aged 65 and older could almost triple, increasing from 5.7% in 2011 to between 14.2% and 15.5% in 2036 depending on the projection scenario.
Geographic distribution
Like the Aboriginal population as a whole, Registered Indians are more likely to reside in provinces west of Quebec. In 2011, Ontario was the province with the largest number of Registered Indians (167,000), followed by British Columbia (126,000), Alberta (116,000), Manitoba (116,000) and Saskatchewan (103,000) (Table 11). Those five provinces would still be at the top of the list in 2036 and could account for more than 82% of the entire registered Indian population in Canada. In the other provinces and territories, the registered Indian population would also grow under all of the scenarios developed.
As in 2011, the registered Indian population in 2036 would still be greatly overrepresented in Saskatchewan (between 11.4% and 14.8% of the province's total population), Manitoba (between 9.6% and 11.7%), the Northwest Territories (between 31.0% and 31.6%) and Yukon (between 16.5% and 18.2%), compared with the Canadian average (between 2.5% and 2.8%).
The geographic distribution of Registered Indians is also closely tied to the Indian Act. Under that legislation, the federal government conceded to Indian bands or First Nations the management of certain parts of the territory, better known as 'Indian reserves.' Historically, Registered Indians have always been the main residents of Indian reserves, as the Indian Act makes certain provisions specific to this population.
In 2011, nearly one in two Registered Indians (48%) was living on an Indian reserve. This proportion would remain virtually unchanged between 2011 and 2036 under all adopted scenarios except the scenario with no internal migration. In the absence of internal migration, the many registrations anticipated after 2011 as a result of Bill C-3, Bill C-31 and the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation (most of which should take place off reserves) would lower the percentage of Registered Indians living on reserves. Under that scenario, the proportion would decrease to 46%, indicating that this component plays an important role in the growth of the population living on reserves. In this scenario, the registered Indian population living on reserve would nonetheless post a substantial increase (+1.2% annually on average), mainly because of its high fertility.
Although the registered Indian population residing on Indian reserves would rise in all provinces in all projection scenarios, Saskatchewan would see the most rapid growth, its potential average annual growth rate averaging between 1.8% and 2.5% from 2011 to 2036 (Figure 6).
Non-Status Indians
The non-status Indian population is composed of people who self-identified only with the First Nations group in response to question 18 of the NHS, but who did not declare being Registered Indians in response to question 20.
The demographic development of this population is characterized by its close relationship with that of the registered Indian population. Part of the growth of the non-status Indian population comes from the children of Registered Indians who cannot pass on their status (under category 6(2) in a mixed union with a non-registered individual; see the "Concepts" section). In addition, the non-status Indian population in turn contributes to the increase in the registered Indian population as a large number of people (assumed to be mostly Non-Status Indians) became entitled to register under the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Bill C-3) and the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. This will exert a downward pressure on the population growth of Non-Status Indians.
In recent years, Non-Status Indians have seen their population increase rapidly, particularly as a result of intragenerational ethnic mobility. Between 2001 and 2011, this population more than doubled from 109,000 to 223,000, despite a low fertility level compared with other groups.
The non-status Indian population could undergo significant changes from 2011 to 2036 if, as assumed under these projections, a significant part of it were to register on the Indian Register during the projected period. Because of Bill C-3 and the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation, such registrations would notably take place during the early years of the projection period and would, at the same time, limit the increase in the non-status Indian population at the beginning of the projection period.
Depending on the chosen scenario, the non-status Indian population would increase either the most slowly or the most quickly among Aboriginal identity groups. If intragenerational ethnic mobility were to cease, this population could increase slightly from 223,000 in 2011 to 245,000 in 2036. Conversely, it would continue to increase rapidly and reach between 478,000 and 489,000 in the scenarios where ethnic mobility continues at the same pace as that of the previous 15 years (Figure 4).
Age structure
Subject to a complex set of demographic dynamics, the non-status Indian population is expected to age the least quickly during the projected period compared with the other Aboriginal identity groups (Figure 7). The fact that a significant proportion of Non-Status Indians would register on the Indian Register during the period would exert downward pressure on the increase in the number of adults projected, and thus the median age. Moreover, the number of Non-Status Indians would continue to enjoy a steady boost from births by both non-status Indian women and women registered under category 6(2) who are in a mixed union and whose children are often Non-Status Indians. This, in turn, would contribute to keeping the population young as a whole.
Under all of the scenarios that assume a constant intragenerational ethnic mobility, the median age of the non-status Indian population would increase from 27.1 years in 2011 to between 32.1 years (constant fertility scenario) and 33.0 years (reference scenario) in 2036. This population could nonetheless see its median age decline slightly to 26.8 years in 2036 if intragenerational ethnic mobility were to cease in 2011. The fact that intragenerational ethnic mobility is associated with an influx of people who tend to be older helps explain these differences.
Moreover, the proportion of people aged under 15 within this population would decrease from 28.7% in 2011 to between 21.1% (reference scenario) and 28.6% (scenario with no ethnic mobility) in 2036. At the other end of the spectrum, the proportion of people aged 65 and older would increase in all cases from 6.2% in 2011 to between 12.0% (scenario with no ethnic mobility) and 14.2% (reference scenario) in 2036, mainly as a result of the projected increase in life expectancy.
Geographic distribution
In 2011, Ontario had the largest number of Non-Status Indians (79,000), followed by British Columbia (44,000) and Quebec (31,000). Newfoundland and Labrador (2.2%), Nova Scotia (1.0%) and British Columbia (1.0%) had the highest percentages of Non-Status Indians in their provincial populations. These figures stand in contrast with those for the Aboriginal population as a whole, which is most strongly represented in the Prairie provinces.
Under all of the scenarios where recent levels of ethnic mobility remain constant throughout the projection period, the number of Non-Status Indians would increase in all provinces and territories by 2036. Under the reference scenario, Ontario (175,000), British Columbia (92,000) and Quebec (68,000) would continue to present the largest populations of Non-Status Indians in 2036 (Table 12).
Under the assumption without intragenerational ethnic mobility during the projected period, the situation would differ, as a number of Atlantic provinces would see decreases in the number of Non-Status Indians. Declines would be notable in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where a large number of Non-Status Indians would register on the Indian Register because of the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. In the absence of intragenerational ethnic mobility, the non-status Indian population of Alberta (33,000) would surpass that of Quebec (26,000), mainly because of more favourable internal migration levels.
Among Aboriginal identity groups, Non-Status Indians had the highest percentage (53.7%) of people living in one of the 33 CMAs in 2011. This proportion would slightly increase under all of the projection scenarios and reach between 54.7% and 56.5% in 2036, except under the scenario with no internal migration from 2011 onward. In this case, the proportion would decline to 52.0%.
It should also be noted that a very small proportion (between 2.1% and 4.6%) of the non-status Indian population would live on an Indian reserve in 2036, as was the case in 2011 (2.9%). This contrasts with the registered Indian population, of which a large percentage (48.0%) resided on Indian reserves in 2011.
Métis
For the purposes of this analysis, the Métis population is composed of people who self-identified solely with the Métis Aboriginal group in response to question 18 of the NHS and who did not self-identify as a Registered Indian in response to question 20. According to the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) website, "Historically, the term "Métis" applied to the children of French fur traders and Cree women in the Prairies, and of English and Scottish traders and Dene women in the north. Today, the term is used broadly to describe people with mixed First Nation and European ancestry who identify themselves as Métis, distinct from First Nation people, Inuit or non-Aboriginal people. Many Canadians have mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry, but not all identify themselves as Métis. Note that Métis organizations in Canada have differing criteria about who qualifies as a Métis person."Note 31
In 2011, the Métis population numbered 437,000, up from 165,000 at the beginning of the millennium (2001). Between 2001 and 2011, Métis have seen their population increase at an average annual rate of 4.8%, higher than that of the Aboriginal population as a whole (+3.8%). This rapid growth stemmed mainly from intragenerational ethnic mobility.
According to all projection scenarios presented, the Métis population would continue to increase, but at a slower pace than that observed during the past decade (Table 8). Projected average annual growth rates differ greatly depending on the ethnic mobility assumption, ranging from 0.8% to 2.6% and resulting in a population totalling between 531,000 and 835,000 in 2036 (Figure 8). The increase in the Métis population would therefore be four times higher if, instead of stopping after 2011, intragenerational ethnic mobility were to continue at levels observed recently. To illustrate the significance of this phenomenon, under the reference scenario, 290,000 people would become Métis between 2011 and 2036 as a result of changes in reported identity. Natural increase (the difference between the number of births and deaths) would be only 116,000.
In the absence of intragenerational ethnic mobility, the Métis population would not grow faster than the non-Aboriginal population, primarily because immigration adds to the latter and also because the fertility of Métis is not much higher than that of the non-Aboriginal population. Because the difference in fertility is small, there would be little impact on the Métis population if its fertility were to converge with that of the non-Aboriginal population.
Age structure
In general, the Métis population is older than other Aboriginal identity groups considered in this report (Figure 9). Intragenerational ethnic mobility plays a part in this phenomenon, because ethnic migrants (primarily non-Aboriginal people) to the Métis group tend to be older than the population receiving them, thereby accelerating its aging. In recent years, however, the impact of ethnic mobility on the aging of this population has declined if not disappeared altogether.
In 2011, the Métis population had a median age of 31.1 years, almost 10 years younger than that of the non-Aboriginal population but nearly 5 years older than that of Registered Indians (26.3 years) and 8 years older than that of the Inuit population (23.1 years).
Under the scenarios proposed, the median age of the Métis population would increase more rapidly (+9 years) than that of the non-Aboriginal population (+4 years) between 2011 and 2036. It would reach about 40 years by 2036 under all scenarios considered and the Métis population would remain the oldest among all Aboriginal populations.
Under all of the scenarios, the aging of the Métis population would also be evidenced by a decline in the proportion of young Métis aged under 15, from 22.8% in 2011 to between 16.8% and 18.2% in 2036. It would also be reflected in an increase in the proportion of Métis aged 65 and older, which could almost triple from 6.5% in 2011 to between 18.8% and 19.7% in 2036.
The results show that intragenerational ethnic mobility would not accelerate the aging of this population, because the age profile of people who change their identity to Métis is very similar to that of the host population. Neither would the aging of the population be accelerated by a convergence of fertility, given that the fertility of Métis is very similar to that of non-Aboriginal people. In all cases, the Métis population would remain younger than the non-Aboriginal population.
Geographic distribution
As previously noted, the Métis population has historical ties with the Prairie provinces and the North. Therefore, it is not surprising that a large proportion of Métis can be found there today, particularly in the Prairies.
In 2011, nearly 7 in 10 Métis lived west of Ontario. This proportion would decrease slightly to 63% under the reference scenario, largely because the Métis population in Ontario would increase more rapidly than more westerly populations (Table 13).
If ethnic mobility were to continue, the proportion of Métis in the population would increase in all provinces in 2036. However, this would not be the case under the assumption with no intragenerational ethnic mobility. Under that assumption, the Métis population would grow less rapidly than the rest of the population in most provinces. The highest proportions of Métis would be found in Manitoba (between 6.0% and 7.7%), Saskatchewan (between 5.2% and 6.1%) and the Northwest Territories (between 6.4% and 6.7%) in 2036, as was the case in 2011.
In 2011, Métis were more concentrated in CMAs (47.8%) compared with the Aboriginal population as a whole (37.3%). The proportion of Métis residing in CMAs would undergo a similar increase regardless of the fertility or internal migration scenario and reach between 51.8% and 52.2% in 2036. Under the scenario where intragenerational ethnic mobility ceases in 2011, this proportion would remain around 49%.
In 2011, there were five CMAs in Canada where more than 10,000 Métis resided. All of them—Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Calgary and Saskatoon—were located in the western provinces. Under the reference scenario, the CMAs of Toronto, Montréal, the Ontario part of Ottawa–Gatineau, Regina, Greater Sudbury and Victoria could also number more than 10,000 Métis by 2036. This result is strongly dependent on whether intragenerational ethnic mobility continues; without this component, only Toronto, Regina and Montréal would join the group of CMAs where more than 10,000 Métis reside.
Inuit
The Inuit population is composed of people who self-identified solely with the Inuit group in response to question 18 of the NHS and who did not self-identify as Registered Indians in response to question 20. The Inuit population is very different from other Aboriginal populations in Canada. From a demographic point of view, this population is particularly young and is distinguished by higher fertility and a shorter life expectancy than the other Aboriginal identity groups.
Moreover, intragenerational ethnic mobility does not seem to have had a compelling or sustained impact on this population in recent decades, in contrast with the Métis and non-status Indian populations. While natural increase is not enough to explain this population's growth between 2006 and 2011, these projections do not take this additional increase into account, because of its exceptional nature and the fact that it could be related to changes in the NHS compared with the 2006 Census (see "Projection assumptions and scenarios").Note 32
Between 2001 and 2011, the Inuit population grew from 46,000 to 63,000. Under the three projection scenarios considered (the reference scenario and those based on a moderate convergence of fertility and constant fertility), the Inuit population would continue to grow over the next 25 years (Figure 10). It would total between 86,000 (reference scenario) and 95,000 (constant fertility scenario) in 2036. The average annual growth rate of this population would nonetheless be lower than that observed between 2001 and 2011 (+3.1%), reaching between 1.2% under the reference scenario and 1.7% under the constant fertility scenario (Table 8).
In all cases, because of its high fertility, the Inuit population would grow more rapidly than the non-Aboriginal population. It would also grow more rapidly than the non-status Indian and Métis populations should intragenerational ethnic mobility stop in 2011. Otherwise, it would grow less rapidly.
Age structure
Under all projection scenarios, the Inuit population would age throughout the projected period but would nonetheless remain relatively young (Figure 11). Under the assumption where Inuit fertility converges completely with that of non-Aboriginal people, the Inuit population would see its median age (23.1 years in 2011) increase by 9.2 years. However, the median age would rise by only 5.7 years were Inuit fertility to remain at the level observed recently. Thus, the speed of the Inuit population's aging would be very closely tied to its future fertility level.
The gradual aging of the Inuit population would also be reflected by a lower proportion of youth aged under 15 and a higher proportion of people aged 65 and older under all the scenarios. While one in three Inuit was aged under 15 in 2011, this proportion would decrease by 2036 to between 21.2% (reference scenario) and 27.7% (constant fertility scenario). On the other hand, the proportion of Inuit aged 65 and older would more than double from 4.0% in 2011 to between 9.5% and 10.5% in 2036.
Geographic distribution
Historically, Inuit have always been the main inhabitants of Canada's Arctic regions and, in that sense, they differ from the rest of the population, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. In 2011, 83.1% of people living in one of the four Inuit Nunangat regions—Nunavut, Nunavik (northern Quebec), the Inuvialuit region of the Northwest Territories and Nunatsiavut (northern Labrador)—were Inuit. In 2036, this proportion would not differ significantly, varying between 85.4% and 86.8% according to the scenarios.
In 2011, 46,000 Inuit were living in one of the four Inuit Nunangat regions. In 2036, the Inuit population living in Inuit Nunangat would reach between 64,000 (reference scenario) and 72,000 (constant fertility scenario). As in 2011, Nunavut would be the Inuit Nunangat region with the most numerous Inuit population in 2036, reaching between 38,000 and 43,000 (Figure 12). The Inuit population could also see an increase in each of the other three Inuit Nunangat regions, according to all scenarios.
Notes
- Date modified: