Foreign direct investment
The Daily, Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Canadian direct investment abroad rose by 24% in 2008, largely the result of the substantially weaker Canadian dollar's effect in the fourth quarter of 2008 on the value of foreign currency-denominated direct investment positions. The depreciation of the Canadian dollar against most foreign currencies added $82.8 billion to the overall Canadian direct investment position abroad.
The Daily, Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Canadian direct investment abroad rose by 24% in 2008, largely the result of the substantially weaker Canadian dollar's effect in the fourth quarter of 2008 on the value of foreign currency-denominated direct investment positions. The depreciation of the Canadian dollar against most foreign currencies added $82.8 billion to the overall Canadian direct investment position abroad.
In 2008, the Canadian dollar lost ground (-19%) against the US dollar after reaching parity at the end of 2007. It also depreciated by 15% against the euro and 34% against the Japanese yen, but gained about 11% on the British pound.
The 24% gain in 2008 was the strongest growth in Canadian direct investment abroad since 1981. Most of the gains were accounted for by changes in the value of investments in the United States, as the direct investment position grew to $310.7 billion. Nevertheless, Canadian direct investments at the end of 2008 were spread over countries on all continents, with 39 countries having at least $1 billion in investment.
Note to readers
This is the annual release of detailed foreign direct investment position data. This release contains country detail for direct investment that is drawn from the annual survey. This information is not available at the time of the quarterly International investment position release.
Direct investment is a component of the international investment position that refers to investment of a resident entity in one country obtaining a lasting interest in an enterprise resident in another country. The lasting interest implies the existence of a long-term relationship between the direct investor and the enterprise, and a significant degree of influence by the investor on the management of the enterprise.
In practice, direct investment is deemed to occur when a company owns at least 10% of the voting equity in a foreign enterprise. This report presents the cumulative year-end positions for direct investment. In the Canadian statistics, direct investment is measured as the total value of equity, net long-term claims and net short-term claims held by the enterprise across the border.
Foreign direct investment is often channelled through intermediate holding companies or other legal entities before reaching its ultimate destination. Since these entities are generally in the financial sector, this sector accounts for a larger share on an immediate investor basis than if the ultimate destination were known. This is especially the case for Canadian direct investment abroad.
Currency valuation
The value of Canadian direct investment abroad is denominated in foreign currency and converted to Canadian dollars at the end of each period for which a year-end position is calculated. When the Canadian dollar is depreciating in value, the restatement of the value of direct investment abroad in Canadian dollars increases the recorded value. The opposite is true when the dollar is appreciating. Foreign direct investment in Canada is directly recorded in Canadian dollars and the fluctuation of the Canadian dollar has no impact on the recorded value.
Foreign direct investment in Canada grew by 3% in 2008. This was well below the average annual growth of 9% over the last decade, and reflected considerably slower investment activity in the year, especially from the United States. Foreign direct investment in Canada was more concentrated, with 22 countries having more than $1 billion in direct investment in Canada at the end of 2008.
Canadian direct investment abroad
Direct investment assets in the United States increased by $80.1 billion to $310.7 billion in 2008. The weaker Canadian currency relative to the US dollar added $52.5 billion to the Canadian direct investment position in that region. The share of investment in the United States increased for a second year, accounting for 49% of total direct investment abroad at the end of 2008. This was up significantly from 45% a year earlier.
However, the strengthened Canadian dollar against the British pound had an opposite effect on direct investment assets in United Kingdom. The value of Canadian direct investment in the United Kingdom fell $5.2 billion to $54.0 billion, although that country remained the second most popular destination for Canadian direct investment abroad.
Canadian direct investment increased in all other major European countries at the end of 2008. Canada's most significant European destinations of investment remained Ireland, with investments totalling $20.5 billion; France with $18.7 billion; Hungary, $10.8 billion; Germany, $10.5 billion; Switzerland, $9.1 billion, and the Netherlands, $8.4 billion.
Canadian direct investment in Caribbean countries remained high at the end of 2008. The total direct investment in Barbados, Bermuda and Cayman Islands increased to $86.5 billion. In the past few years, Canadian investors have directed growing amounts to these countries.
Canadian direct investors were also well represented in South America. At the end of the year, Canadian direct investment stood at $9.2 billion in Brazil and $6.4 billion in Chile.
Foreign direct investment in Canada
Foreign direct investments in Canada from the United States increased slightly at the end of 2008 to $293.6 billion. American investors still hold most of the direct investment in Canada at about 58%. However, this proportion has steadily declined over the past years and fell below 60% for the first time in 2008. It was at 60% at the end of 2007 and 67% 10 years earlier.
Three-quarters of the direct investments in Canada are from three countries — the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The United Kingdom was the second largest direct investor country with 11% of the total, or $54.4 billion. The Netherlands stood at 7% or $33.9 billion.
Four other European countries were on the list of top nations with foreign direct investment in Canada in 2008. They were France with $18.5 billion; Switzerland, $15.3 billion; Germany, $9.4 billion; and Luxembourg, $5.7 billion.
Net direct investment position
The increase in the level of Canadian direct investment abroad led to a gain of $108.3 billion at the end of 2008 in Canada's net direct investment position (the difference between Canadian direct investment abroad and foreign direct investment in Canada). This was up sharply from $24.1 billion in 2007, and resulted in the largest recorded surplus on net direct investment position of $132.4 billion. This change was dominated by the swing in the net investment position in the United States.
For the first time, Canada's net direct investment position with the United States was a net asset position of $17.1 billion at the end of 2008, compared with a net liability of $62.1 billion a year earlier.
The nation's net direct investment position with the United Kingdom, Canada's second most important direct investment partner country also flipped, but in the other direction. It swung from a net asset position of $6.8 billion in 2007 to a net liability of $0.4 billion in 2008. This was the first Canadian deficit with the United Kingdom since 1993.
Available on CANSIM: table 376-0051.
Definitions, data sources and methods: survey number 1537.
For more information, or to order data, contact Client Services (613-951-1855; infobalance@statcan.gc.ca). To enquire about the methods, concepts or data quality of this release please contact Éric Simard (613-951-7244; eric.simard@statcan.gc.ca), Balance of Payments Division.
Table 1 Foreign direct investment positions at year end
The 24% gain in 2008 was the strongest growth in Canadian direct investment abroad since 1981. Most of the gains were accounted for by changes in the value of investments in the United States, as the direct investment position grew to $310.7 billion. Nevertheless, Canadian direct investments at the end of 2008 were spread over countries on all continents, with 39 countries having at least $1 billion in investment.
Note to readers
This is the annual release of detailed foreign direct investment position data. This release contains country detail for direct investment that is drawn from the annual survey. This information is not available at the time of the quarterly International investment position release.
Direct investment is a component of the international investment position that refers to investment of a resident entity in one country obtaining a lasting interest in an enterprise resident in another country. The lasting interest implies the existence of a long-term relationship between the direct investor and the enterprise, and a significant degree of influence by the investor on the management of the enterprise.
In practice, direct investment is deemed to occur when a company owns at least 10% of the voting equity in a foreign enterprise. This report presents the cumulative year-end positions for direct investment. In the Canadian statistics, direct investment is measured as the total value of equity, net long-term claims and net short-term claims held by the enterprise across the border.
Foreign direct investment is often channelled through intermediate holding companies or other legal entities before reaching its ultimate destination. Since these entities are generally in the financial sector, this sector accounts for a larger share on an immediate investor basis than if the ultimate destination were known. This is especially the case for Canadian direct investment abroad.
Currency valuation
The value of Canadian direct investment abroad is denominated in foreign currency and converted to Canadian dollars at the end of each period for which a year-end position is calculated. When the Canadian dollar is depreciating in value, the restatement of the value of direct investment abroad in Canadian dollars increases the recorded value. The opposite is true when the dollar is appreciating. Foreign direct investment in Canada is directly recorded in Canadian dollars and the fluctuation of the Canadian dollar has no impact on the recorded value.
Foreign direct investment in Canada grew by 3% in 2008. This was well below the average annual growth of 9% over the last decade, and reflected considerably slower investment activity in the year, especially from the United States. Foreign direct investment in Canada was more concentrated, with 22 countries having more than $1 billion in direct investment in Canada at the end of 2008.
Canadian direct investment abroad
Direct investment assets in the United States increased by $80.1 billion to $310.7 billion in 2008. The weaker Canadian currency relative to the US dollar added $52.5 billion to the Canadian direct investment position in that region. The share of investment in the United States increased for a second year, accounting for 49% of total direct investment abroad at the end of 2008. This was up significantly from 45% a year earlier.
However, the strengthened Canadian dollar against the British pound had an opposite effect on direct investment assets in United Kingdom. The value of Canadian direct investment in the United Kingdom fell $5.2 billion to $54.0 billion, although that country remained the second most popular destination for Canadian direct investment abroad.
Canadian direct investment increased in all other major European countries at the end of 2008. Canada's most significant European destinations of investment remained Ireland, with investments totalling $20.5 billion; France with $18.7 billion; Hungary, $10.8 billion; Germany, $10.5 billion; Switzerland, $9.1 billion, and the Netherlands, $8.4 billion.
Canadian direct investment in Caribbean countries remained high at the end of 2008. The total direct investment in Barbados, Bermuda and Cayman Islands increased to $86.5 billion. In the past few years, Canadian investors have directed growing amounts to these countries.
Canadian direct investors were also well represented in South America. At the end of the year, Canadian direct investment stood at $9.2 billion in Brazil and $6.4 billion in Chile.
Foreign direct investment in Canada
Foreign direct investments in Canada from the United States increased slightly at the end of 2008 to $293.6 billion. American investors still hold most of the direct investment in Canada at about 58%. However, this proportion has steadily declined over the past years and fell below 60% for the first time in 2008. It was at 60% at the end of 2007 and 67% 10 years earlier.
Three-quarters of the direct investments in Canada are from three countries — the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The United Kingdom was the second largest direct investor country with 11% of the total, or $54.4 billion. The Netherlands stood at 7% or $33.9 billion.
Four other European countries were on the list of top nations with foreign direct investment in Canada in 2008. They were France with $18.5 billion; Switzerland, $15.3 billion; Germany, $9.4 billion; and Luxembourg, $5.7 billion.
Net direct investment position
The increase in the level of Canadian direct investment abroad led to a gain of $108.3 billion at the end of 2008 in Canada's net direct investment position (the difference between Canadian direct investment abroad and foreign direct investment in Canada). This was up sharply from $24.1 billion in 2007, and resulted in the largest recorded surplus on net direct investment position of $132.4 billion. This change was dominated by the swing in the net investment position in the United States.
For the first time, Canada's net direct investment position with the United States was a net asset position of $17.1 billion at the end of 2008, compared with a net liability of $62.1 billion a year earlier.
The nation's net direct investment position with the United Kingdom, Canada's second most important direct investment partner country also flipped, but in the other direction. It swung from a net asset position of $6.8 billion in 2007 to a net liability of $0.4 billion in 2008. This was the first Canadian deficit with the United Kingdom since 1993.
Available on CANSIM: table 376-0051.
Definitions, data sources and methods: survey number 1537.
For more information, or to order data, contact Client Services (613-951-1855; infobalance@statcan.gc.ca). To enquire about the methods, concepts or data quality of this release please contact Éric Simard (613-951-7244; eric.simard@statcan.gc.ca), Balance of Payments Division.
Table 1 Foreign direct investment positions at year end
*********************************************
ABORIGINAL POPULATIONS IN CANADIAN CITIES: WHY ARE THEY GROWING SO FAST?
Eric Guimond, Norbert Robitaille, Sacha Senécal. Canadian Issues. Montreal: Winter 2009. pg. 11, 8 pgs
ABSTRACT/RÉSUMÉ
Urban Aboriginal populations have been growing very quickly over the past decade. For most observers, migration would be the main driver of this spectacular growth. But research has repeatedly shown that the idea of a "mass exodus" of Aboriginal populations from Indian reserves to Canadian cities is a myth. Since 1966, there have been more people moving to reserves than leaving. In fact, traditional components of demographic growth - fertility, mortality and migration - cannot account for all of the observed growth. With this analysis, we show how ethnic mobility, defined as changes in self-reporting of ethnicity, has been and is likely to continue to be an important component to the growth of Aboriginal populations in Canadian cities.
Urban Aboriginal populations have been growing very quickly over the past decade. For most observers, migration would be the main driver of this spectacular growth. But research has repeatedly shown that the idea of a "mass exodus" of Aboriginal populations from Indian reserves to Canadian cities is a myth. Since 1966, there have been more people moving to reserves than leaving. In fact, traditional components of demographic growth - fertility, mortality and migration - cannot account for all of the observed growth. With this analysis, we show how ethnic mobility, defined as changes in self-reporting of ethnicity, has been and is likely to continue to be an important component to the growth of Aboriginal populations in Canadian cities.
Les populations autochtones en milieu urbain ont augmenté très rapidement au cours de la dernière décennie. Pour la plupart des observateurs, la migration pourrait être la principale composante de cette croissance spectaculaire. Mais la recherche a démontré à plusieurs reprises que l'idée d'un « exode massif » des populations autochtones des réserves indiennes vers les villes du Canada est un mythe. Depuis 1966, un plus grand nombre de personnes ont emménagé dans des réserves que celles l'ayant quité. De fait, les composantes traditionnelles de la croissance démographique - la natalité, la mortalité et la migration - ne peuvent pas totalement expliquer la croissance observée. Cette analyse démontre comment la mobilité ethnique, définie comme des changements dans l'autodéclaration de l'ethnicité, a été et continue probablement à être une composante importante de la croissance des populations autochtones dans les villes du Canada.
Improper interpretation of demographic data can have severe detrimental effects on one's understanding of socioeconomic trends, as well as on the formulation of policies directed at those trends. Consider a hypothetical scenario where a surge in demand for social assistance in a community triggered by massive migration of unemployed people from nearby rural areas is mistakenly attributed to poor job market preparation and/ or postsecondary uptake among recent cohorts of high school graduates. In this scenario, policymakers would be oblivious to the root cause of the problem - lack of job opportunities in rural areas and policy responses "would be geared to an erroneous interpretation of circumstances that in fact do not exist." (Guimond 2008)
Urban Aboriginal Canadian populations have been growing very quickly over the past decade. For most observers, migration would be the main driver of this spectacular growth. But as with our hypothetical scenario, research has repeatedly shown that the idea of a "mass exodus" of Aboriginal populations from Indian reserves to Canadian cities is a myth, and that other factors are at play As researchers and Aboriginal community leaders continue their efforts to expand the foundation of knowledge regarding factors affecting Aboriginal well-being, it is crucial that these efforts be based on a sound demographic footing. This paper explores the phenomenon of urban Aboriginal population growth with the objective of separating myth from reality with respect to the factors contributing to the rapidly growing number of Aboriginal people in Canadian cities.
From 1996 to 2006, the overall Aboriginal population living in large Canadian cities1 increased from 221,295 to 366,165 persons, growing by more than 5% annually on average (Table 1). By comparison, the non-Aboriginal population grew by less than 2% annually over the course of this decade.
There is great variation in growth among Aboriginal identity groups.2 The North American Indian population, which accounts for more than half of the whole, rose from 129,700 persons in 1996 to 188,160 persons in 2006. While modest in comparison to the other groups, this pace of growth was nonetheless twice that registered by the nonAboriginal population. In contrast, the second largest urban Aboriginal group, the Métis, literally exploded, doubling in size from 79,785 in 1996 to 160,870 in 2006. Inuit and individuals of other Aboriginal identities also experienced rapid growth, but their numbers are small relatively speaking; these two groups account for less than 5% of the urban Aboriginal population in 2006.
Overall, the observed increases for the Métis population greatly exceeded a maximum of 5.5% per yea that is theoretically possible for a population subject only to the natural movement of births and deaths (see textbox); North American Indian population growth was slower but still close to that threshold. What follows is an examination of the various phenomena at work here, including an analysis of the contribution of each.
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
- NATURAL INCREASE
The natural increase of a population is the difference between the number of children born and the number of persons who die in a given period. If Aboriginal populations perpetuated themselves solely through births, then natural increase and the total increase would necessarily be equal. But as Chart 1 reveals, this is not the case. For all groups and both intercensal periods, the observed growth rate of Aboriginal populations largely exceeds their natural increase. With respect to the Métis which have experienced a spectacular urban population growth in the last decade, the overall growth rate (7.4%; 7.1%) is six to seven times higher than what their natural movement of births and deaths has contributed to (1.2%; 1.0%).
Clearly, while the Aboriginal populations have higher fertility than the non-Aboriginal population, this alone cannot explain their exceptional growth in Canadian cities. - MIGRATION
Migration from Indian reserves is often alluded to in explanations of urban Aboriginal population growth. However, contrary to popular belief, there is no mass exodus from Indian reserves and settlements; in fact, analysis of census data on place of residence five years ago indicates that, overall, there has been a net inflow to Indian reserves since 1966 (Clatworth and Norris 2003; Siggner 1977).
Analysis by Clatworthy and Norris (2003) of the 2001 census data show that the resulting impact of movement to and from Indian reserves between 1996 and 2001 is a positive net migration of +10,995 persons for these communities. For urban areas, the net migration is negative (-430 for urban CMAs; -4,095 for urban non-CMA areas), indicating that there are more Aboriginal people leaving the cities than moving to them for the 1996-2001 period. Preliminary analysis of 2006 census data indicates similar trends for the 2001-2006 period (Guimond and Robitalle 2008). Clearly, while Aboriginal populations are mobile, migration from Indian reserves and other rural communities does not explain the exceptional growth of the North American Indian and Métis populations in Canadian cities. - VARIATION IN THE QUALITY OF ENUMERATIONS
More informed users of census data on Aboriginal populations sometimes raise the issue of data quality as an explanation to the observed spectacular growth patterns. Every census, a certain number of individuals are missed (undercoverage), while others are counted by mistake or more than once (overcoverage). The difference between these two quantities is called net undercoverage. If the net undercoverage rate varies, the growth measure derived from the comparison of a populations size in two successive censuses is distorted: deterioration in quality of coverage results in an under-estimate of growth, while an improvement in quality results in an over-estimate of growth. If the quality of coverage is constant, we then have a "true" measure of relative growth. Although there is very little information about the undercoverage of Aboriginal populations in Canadian cities, available information points to a relative stability in the quality of enumeration between 1996 and 2006 (Statistics Canada 2005, 1989; Norris et al, 1995). It can therefore be said that the demographic explosion of Aboriginal populations in Canadian cities is not purely a statistical artefact. Clearly, the observed growth of Aboriginal populations is not limited to fertility, mortality, and migration, and is not simply the result of coverage errors. So what is the cause of such extraordinary growth? - ETHNIC MOBILITY
In light of the information available, the extraordinary growth of the Canada's Aboriginal populations in Canadian cities between 1996 and 2006 can be attributed, in variable proportions depending on the period and the Aboriginal identity group, to a phenomenon known as ethnic mobility. Different terms are used in the literature to designate this phenomenon: ethnic switching, passing, changing identities and changes in self- reporting of ethnic identity. There are two types of ethnic mobility: intergenerational and intragenerational (Robitaille and Choinière 1987).
Intergenerational ethnic mobility, which occurs within families, may happen when a child's ethnocultural affiliation is reported for the first time. Parents and children do not necessarily have the same affiliation, especially when the parents do not belong to the same ethnocultural group, i.e. when parents have intermarried. Intergenerational ethnic mobility has long been a component of the demographic growth of Aboriginal groups in Canada. The Métis, the second largest Aboriginal group, are a "product" of this type of ethnic mobility. Historical, geopolitical, commercial and cultural circumstances related to colonization of Western Canada led to the genesis of this Aboriginal cultural group, originally uniting descendents of North American Indian women and French men.
Contrary to popular belief, intermarriage and "interparenting" offer a great potential for demographic growth: a group of persons exhibiting a high rate of intermarriage has a higher potential for rapid population growth than a group with little or no intermarriage (Big Eagle and Guimond, in print; Robitaille and Guimond 2003). For Aboriginal groups in Canada, the realization of this potential rests with the members of these groups currently in mixed couples: how do they identify themselves and their children?
The analysis of 2001 census data on the cultural identity of children under the age of five reveals the importance of intermarriage and intergenerational ethnic mobility for Aboriginal groups in two respects. First, children of Aboriginal identity in Canadian cities are mainly from exogamous unions (i.e., only one parent belonging to the group) while less than a third are from endogamous unions (i.e., both parents belonging to the group). Secondly, about one Métis child in eight (13%) is from a union where no parent has Métis identity ("unaffiliated" union), and a majority (57%; not shown on graph) of these Métis children originate from an Indian/non-Aboriginal union. These observations provide ample evidence that intermarriage and intergenerational ethnic mobility are an integral component of the population growth of Aboriginal groups in Canada. These observations also reveal that the demographic dynamics which contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Métis in Canada during the 19th centuryare still at play at the start of the 21st century. The Métis population continues to benefit considerably from intergenerational ethnic mobility.
Intragenerational ethnic mobility results from a change in the ethnic affiliation of a person over time. This type of ethnic mobility has been identified as the primary source of the exceptional growth of Aboriginal populations. Estimates produced for the 1986-2001 period show that nearly 42 000 Indians living off-reserve in 2001 did not self-report as Indian in 1986, or one off-reserve Indian in eight (13%), and over 101 000 Métis in 2001 did not report as Métis in 1986, which amounts to four Métis in ten enumerated in 2001 (Guimond 2009). Moreover, analysis reveals that over 90% of ethnic transfers estimated nationally for the 1986-2001 period took place in urban areas. Preliminary analysis of the 2006 Census data indicate that intragenerational ethnic mobility is still the primary component of growth for the Métis population, especially in cities (Guimond and Robitaille 2008). The phenomenon of intragenerational ethnic mobility was also documented among Aboriginal populations in the United States (Passel, 1996) and Australia (Ross, 1996). - IMPLICATIONS FOR WELL-BEING ANALYSIS
That ethnic mobility is such an important component of the demographic growth of Aboriginal groups in urban settings requires us to consider the implications for analysis of socioeconomic trends. High rates of change in ethnic affiliation can affect not only the size of a population but also its composition, particularly if the socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., educational attainment, employment earnings, family size) of the pool of ethnic drifters are markedly different from those of the base population. As such, trends with respect to socio-demographic characteristics of urban Aboriginal people, and particularly of Métis, need to be interpreted with caution and with awareness of the potential impact of ethnic mobility on these trends (Guimond, 2009, 2003).
CONCLUSION
The Aboriginal population is growing substantially faster than the non- Ab original population, especially in Canadian cities. Ethnic mobility is the primary component of the urban Aboriginal population explosion between 1996 and 2006, in particular among the Métis population. The misinterpretation of trends towards urbanization of Aboriginal populations could result in: (a) over-emphasis on migration from Indian reserve to cities; (b) a policy-shift away from First Nations and Inuit communities.
Though there is no definitive explanation for ethnic mobility among Aboriginal populations in Canada, three types of factors may be considered. First, there are predisposing demographic factors. In Canada's large urban centres, people of various ethnocultural backgrounds meet, form couples and have children. Given their mixed ethnocultural origins, once they are adults, those children may "choose" their ethnic affiliation, and such a choice may vary depending on the circumstances. In a nutshell, mixed origins most likely facilitate intragenerational ethnic mobility.
Social factors could also foster intragenerational ethnic mobility toward Aboriginal populations. Different sociopolitical events - spontaneous like the Oka crisis in the summer of 1990 or organized like the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples from 1991 to 1996 - as well as their media coverage raised public awareness and contributed to restoring Aboriginal peoples pride. Increased public attention and an improved overall perception Aboriginal people have of themselves could therefore have induced some people to report as Aboriginal.
Finally, political and legal decisions could also further foster ethnic mobility toward Aboriginal populations, especially if such decisions have spin-offs considered to be favourable. For example, the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act had a considerable demographic impact on the size and growth of the Registered Indian population: as of December 31, 2005, 115,551 people had acquired (or reacquired) Indian status under the 1985 amendments.
The potential impact of ethnic mobility on the sociodemographic composition of urban Aboriginal populations was noted, although it is worth mentioning that measuring this impact is exceedingly difficult. More analysis is needed to improve our understanding of both the phenomenon of ethnic mobility and its consequences.
[Sidebar]
A THEORETICAL MAXIMUM FOR NATURAL INCREASE
Theoretically, the maximum rate of natural increase is 5.5% per year. It is obtained from the highest birth rate (60 per 1,000 persons) observable in exceptional conditions -a young population, marrying young and practising no form of contraception- from which is subtracted the lowest death rate (5 per 1,000) persons observed at the time of this analysis. Such a combination of high fertility and low mortality has probably never been observed. Today, the highest national rates of natural increase in the world are at about 3.5% per year. A population maintaining a growth rate of 5.5% per year doubles every 13 years. After a hundred years, that population would be more than 200 times larger than at the outset. A growth rate in excess of 5.5% cannot be explained by natural increase alone: phenomena other than births and deaths are contributing to the increase (Guimond, 1999).
"High rates of change in ethnic affiliation can affect not only the size of a population but also its composition, particularly if the socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., educational attainment, employment earnings, family size) of the pool of ethnic drifters are markedly different from those of the base population."
CANADIAN ABORIGINAL POPULATION... in numbers
Demographic Growth
In 2006, 1.17 million people in Canada identified themselves as Aboriginal representing 3.8% of the Canadian population.
The Aboriginal population is growing rapidly. Overall, it increased by 46.7% between 1996 and 2006 compared to 8.4% for the non-Aboriginal population.
The Aboriginal population is much younger than the non- Aboriginal population (Figure 2). Amongst the Aboriginal population 47.8% of individuals are the under age of 25, compared to less than 30.7% for the rest of the Canadian population. The Inuit population is the youngest of all Aboriginal groups.
The Aboriginal population is currently growing almost twice as fast as the Canadian population at an average of 1.8% per annum compared to 1.0% for the Canadian population. Population projections suggest this trend is expected well into the future. (Aboriginal Population, Household and Family Projections, INAC and CMHQ 2007).
There is great variation in growth rates among Aboriginal groups. Fertility, migration and changes to the Indian Act in 1985 (Bill C-31) can explain some of the growth in the Aboriginal population. However, a significant portion of the population growth is attributable to "ethnic mobility" a term used to define changes in self-reporting of cultural affiliation over time and over generations. (Guimond 2009), L'explosion démographique des populations autochtones du Canada de 1986 à 2001)
Jeanette Steffler has been working for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for fifteen years as a specialist in Aboriginal socioeconomic and demographic analysis and research. She holds a Bachelor of Science specializing in Mathematics and Economics from the University of Alberta and a Master of Arts in Economics from the University of Western Ontario. She is currently a Strategic Research Manager in the Socio-economic and Demographic Statistics Section of INAC. /Andrea Street is an analyst in the SocioEconomic and Demographic Statistics Section of INAC. She holds a Bachelor's degree in Economics from the University of Waterloo and is currently working towards her Masters degree at Carleton University.
[Footnote]
NOTES
1 Includes all Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA), as defined by Statistics Canada, but excluding Indian reserves.
2 Since the 1996 census, Aboriginal identity refers to those persons who reported identifying with at least one Aboriginal group, i.e. North American Indian, Métis or Inuit (Eskimo), and/or those who reported being a Treaty Indian or a Registered Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada and/or who were members of an Indian Band or First Nation. See Statistics Canada (2008).
REFERENCES
Big Eagle, C. and E. Guimond (in print). "Contributions That Count: First Nations Women and Demography", in Restoring the Balance: First Nations Women, Community and Culture, G. Valaskakis, M. Dion Stout and E. Guimond, editors, Winnipeg, University of Manitoba Press.
Clatworthy, S. and MJ. Norris (2003). Aboriginal Mobility and Migration: Recent Patterns and Implications. Ottawa, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate, 29 pages.
Guimond, E. (2009). L'explosion démographique des populations autochtones du Canada de 1986 à 2001, Université de Montréal, Département de démographie, Ph.D. thesis, 209 pages.
Guimond, E. (2008). Remarks before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Meeting No. 34, 39th Parliament, 16 June 2008.
Guimond, E. (2003). "Changing Ethnicity: The Concept of Ethnic Drifters," in Aboriginal Conditions: Research as a Foundation for Public Policy, J. White, P. Maxim and D. Beavon (eds.), UBC Press, pp.91- 107.
Guimond, E. (1999). "Ethnic Mobility and the Demographic Growth of Canada's Aboriginal Populations from 1986 to 1996," in Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 1998-1999, directed by A. Bélanger, Statistics Canada, Ottawa: Industry Canada, Catalogue No. 91-209-XPE, pp. 187-200.
Guimond, E. and N. Robitaille (2008). Aboriginal Populations in Canadian Cities: What's Behind the Spectacular Growth? Paper presented at the Strength in Number Series, co-organized by Statistics Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Vancouver.
Norris, M. J., D. Kerr and E Nault (1995). Projections of the Population with Aboriginal Identity in Canada, 1991-2016. Ottawa, Statistics Canada, Demography division, prepared for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 101 p.
Passel, J.S. (1996). "The Growing American Indian Population, 1960-1990: Beyond Demography," in Changing Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and Public Health, GD. Sandefur, R.R. Rindfuss and B. Cohen (eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, pp.79-102.
Robitaille, N. and R. Choinière (1987). "L'accroissement démographique des groupes autochtones du Canada au XXe siècle," Cahiers québécois de démographie, 16(1): 3-35.
Robitaille, N., A. Boucher and E. Guimond (2005). Mobilité ethnique intergénérationnelle chez les populations autochtones du Canada 1996-2001, paper presented at the 25* conference of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP), Tours, France.
Robitaille, N., and E. Guimond (2003). "La reproduction des populations autochtones du Canada : exogamie, fécondité et mobilité ethnique", Cahiers québécois de démographie, 32, 2: 295-314.
Ross, K. (1996). Population Issues, Indigenous Australians, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4708.0 - Occasional Paper, 88 pages.
Siggner, A.J. (1 977). Preliminary Results from a Study of 1966-1971 Migration Patterns Among Status Indians in Canada. Ottawa, Demography Section, Program Statistics Division, Indian and Eskimo Affairs Program, 25 pages.
Statistics Canada (2008). 2006 Census Dictionary, Canada, Ottawa, Department of Industry, Catalogue No. 92-566-XWE, http://wwwl2.statcan.ca/english/census06/ reference/dictionary/indexxfm.
Statistics Canada (2005). Coverage. 2001 Census 'Technical Report, Canada, Department of Industry, Catalogue No. 92-394-XIE, 85 pages.
Statistics Canada (2003). 2001 Census Dictionary, Canada, Ottawa, Department of Industry, Catalogue No. 92-378-XIE, 413 pages.
Statistics Canada (1989). 1986 Census of Canada. Ethnicity, immigration and citizenship. Ottawa, catalogue 93-109, 442 p.
