Aboriginal Peoples Highlight Tables, 2016 Census
Historical comparison of geographic areas
The boundaries and names of geographic areas can change from one census to the next. In order to facilitate data comparisons between censuses, the data have been adjusted to reflect as closely as possible the 2016 boundaries of these areas.
Area and data suppression
In addition to random rounding, area and data suppression has been adopted to further protect the confidentiality of individual respondents' personal information.
Area and data suppression results in the deletion of all information for geographic areas with populations below a specified size. For example, areas with a population of less than 40 persons are suppressed. If the community searched has a population of less than 40 persons, only the total population counts will be available. Suppression of data can be due to poor data quality or to other technical reasons.
For more information, refer to Geographic areas not released.
To ensure confidentiality, the values, including totals, are randomly rounded either up or down to a multiple of '5' or '10.' To understand these data, you must be aware that each individual value is rounded. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the total value may not match the individual values since totals and sub-totals are independently rounded. Similarly, percentages, which are calculated on rounded data, may not necessarily add up to 100%.
Incompletely enumerated Indian reserves and Indian settlements
In 2016, there were a total of 14 Indian reserves and Indian settlements that were incompletely enumerated. For these reserves and settlements, dwelling enumeration was either not permitted or was interrupted before it could be completed.
This represents a decrease compared to the 31 Indian reserves and Indian settlements that were incompletely enumerated in the 2011 Census. Note that in 2011, of the 31 incompletely enumerated Indian reserves and Indian settlements, 13 were not enumerated as a result of forest fires in Northern Ontario at the time of census collection. In 2016, there were no Indian reserves or Indian settlements that were not enumerated due to a natural disaster.
The 2016 Census population and dwelling counts are not available for the 14 incompletely enumerated Indian reserves and Indian settlements, and are not included in 2016 Census tabulations. Data for geographic areas containing one or more of these reserves and settlements are noted accordingly. Because of the missing data, users are cautioned that for the affected geographic areas, comparisons (e.g., percentage change) between 2011 and 2016 may not be precise. The impact of the missing data for higher-level geographic areas (Canada, provinces and territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations) is very small. However, the impact can be significant for lower-level geographic areas (e.g., census divisions), where the incompletely enumerated Indian reserves and Indian settlements account for a higher proportion of the population. This is especially true for lower-level geographic areas where a particular Indian reserve or Indian settlement was incompletely enumerated for the 2016 Census and enumerated for the 2011 Census and vice versa.
Table 1 provides the list of incompletely enumerated Indian reserves and Indian settlements for the 2016 Census, along with population counts from the last two censuses (where available).
Table 2 shows, in alphabetical order, the list of incompletely enumerated Indian reserves and Indian settlements for the 2016 Census by province, census division and, where applicable, for the census metropolitan area or census agglomeration.
|Province||Incompletely enumerated Indian reserves and Indian settlements, 2016||Enumeration status for the 2016 Census (reasons for absence of data)||Population, 2011||Population, 2006|
|Quebec||Kanesatake||Permission not given||Note ..: not available for a specific reference period. Incompletely enumerated Indian reserve or Indian settlement.||Note ..: not available for a specific reference period. Incompletely enumerated Indian reserve or Indian settlement.|
|Doncaster||Permission not given||Note ..: not available for a specific reference period. Incompletely enumerated Indian reserve or Indian settlement.|
|Kahnawake||Permission not given|
|Lac-Rapide||Permission not given|
|Ontario||Six Nations (Part) 40||Permission not given||946|
|Six Nations (Part) 40||Permission not given||6,213|
|Chippewas of the Thames First Nation 42||Permission not given||762||747|
|Oneida 41||Permission not given||1,282|
|Wahta Mohawk Territory||Permission not given|
|Rankin Location 15D||Permission not given||566|
|Goulais Bay 15A||Permission not given||82|
|Pikangikum 14||Dwelling enumeration not completed – other||2,100|
|Alberta||Saddle Lake 125||Permission not given|
|British Columbia||Esquimalt||Permission not given|
.. not available for a specific reference period. Incompletely enumerated Indian reserve or Indian settlement.
Permission not given: Band council did not give permission to enter their territory.
Dwelling enumeration not completed – other: Enumeration was not completed for reasons such as access restrictions, health and safety issues, etc.
Sources: Statistics Canada, Censuses of population, 2016, 2011 and 2006.
|Chippewas of the Thames First Nation 42||IRI||Ontario||Middlesex||Note ...: not available|
|Doncaster||IRI||Quebec||Les Laurentides||Note ...: not available|
|Goulais Bay 15A||IRI||Ontario||Algoma||Note ...: not available|
|Lac-Rapide||IRI||Quebec||La Vallée-de-la-Gatineau||Note ...: not available|
|Oneida 41||IRI||Ontario||Middlesex||Note ...: not available|
|Pikangikum 14||IRI||Ontario||Kenora||Note ...: not available|
|Rankin Location 15D||IRI||Ontario||Algoma||Sault Ste. Marie|
|Saddle Lake 125||IRI||Alberta||Division No. 12||Note ...: not available|
|Six Nations (Part) 40||IRI||Ontario||Brant||Brantford|
|Six Nations (Part) 40||IRI||Ontario||Haldimand-Norfolk||Note ...: not available|
|Wahta Mohawk Territory||IRI||Ontario||Muskoka||Note ...: not available|
... not applicable
IRI = Indian reserve
S-É = Indian settlement
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2016.
Note describing the Wood Buffalo census subdivision data collection methodology and the use of administrative data sources
On May 1, 2016, a wildfire began southwest of Fort McMurray, Alberta, and on May 3, swept through the community destroying many homes and buildings and forcing the largest wildfire evacuation in Alberta's history. Statistics Canada then decided to suspend census data collection (referred to as 'field data collection') in the evacuated areas.
Statistics Canada used a set of measures to ensure that residents of the Wood Buffalo census subdivision (CSD) (referred to as the Specialized municipality of Wood Buffalo or Wood Buffalo) were included in the 2016 Census of Population. Data for the evacuated area were derived from a combination of sources. First, many residents of the area responded online or by returning a paper questionnaire. Then field data collection was performed for a number of households using short- or long-form questionnaires. Lastly, short-form data were derived from a number of administrative data sources for the households residing in dwellings where field data collection was not possible. Data for all areas not evacuated due to the wildfire are from direct field data collection.
For the 2016 Census, the reference date for data reporting is May 10, 2016. For residents of the evacuated areas during the wildfire, the reference date is May 1, 2016, to reflect the situation as it existed before the fire.
Prior to the evacuation, and even in the following weeks when census data collection was suspended, some responses were received from the residents of the evacuated area. In August 2016, data collection was reinstated in Wood Buffalo and census representatives went door to door to complete census questionnaires. Efforts were focussed on collecting data for the one in four dwellings included in the long-form questionnaire sample. This was particularly important, as administrative data sources do not provide information for long-form questions. To further improve data quality, field data collection was also performed for dwellings in the areas for which no administrative data were available and for collective dwellings. In areas where enumerators prepare a list of dwellings and deliver census materials, field data collection was done for all dwellings.
Wherever possible and when no direct response had been received for a dwelling, data from various administrative data sources were used with a reference date as close as possible to May 2016, for variables such as name, date of birth, sex and marital status. As administrative data files did not contain information on language as collected on the census questionnaire, record linkages between the administrative sources and the 2011 Census database were performed. For successful linkages, the 2011 responses to the language questions were used as proxy for the 2016 language questions. Census questions for which no comparable information could be obtained from administrative data files, such as Relationship to Person 1 and common-law status, were derived during data processing.
Statistics Canada worked closely with both provincial and local authorities in Alberta to obtain access to administrative records to assist in the validation of the data derived from administrative data sources available in Statistics Canada.
If a census response was obtained for residents of a dwelling, this took precedence over any available administrative data. For the remaining cases, during data processing and for the calculation of response rates, data from administrative sources were considered as a response to the same extent as a direct response obtained through traditional collection methods.
Data quality for population and dwelling counts
For the population and dwelling counts, the Wood Buffalo CSD data went through the same quality assessments as the overall census data. A supplementary pre-validation activity was performed by Statistics Canada once data from field collection and administrative sources were combined. This additional step was done to certify that the alternative methods developed for this exceptional situation were providing satisfactory results.
Short-form questionnaire data quality
To obtain data on age, sex and families, Statistics Canada used administrative data for 54% of households, questionnaire data for 40% of households and imputation for the other data (5% of the remaining households).
For households for which administrative data were used, the age and sex data were taken directly from administrative data files. The distribution of the age and sex data from the administrative files and of the data taken directly from the completed questionnaires is comparable for both enumeration methods (administrative data and completed questionnaires). However, with respect to households enumerated using administrative data, the biggest determinant for attributing family characteristics was the use of marital status and parent-child relationship established during linkage with the tax data. A larger number of lone-parent families following processing of the administrative data than the completed questionnaire data was observed. The corresponding proportions were 19.2% (administrative data) and 9.8% (completed questionnaires).
This discrepancy had an impact on the proportion of families consisting of couples without children, which was 30.0% and 40.9%, respectively, depending on the enumeration method. There also seems to be a difference in the data on households taken from the administrative data files with respect to the number of people living common-law; the proportion from the administrative data is smaller than from data from traditional collection. There is also a significant difference in terms of the size of household; proportionally, there are far more one-person households and six or more person households in the administrative data than in the questionnaire data.
For households for which administrative data were used, the 2016 Census data on language were obtained from responses to the 2011 questions on language when linkage was possible. A comparison of the distribution of language variables does not show as many differences for households for which administrative data were used as it does for households for which the data came from completed questionnaires. Comparing the 2011 and 2016 figures for the family and language variables for the Wood Buffalo CSD must be done with caution.