Concepts and Methods Guide
8. Differences between the Aboriginal Peoples Survey and other data sources

Skip to text

Text begins

Due to a number of differences in methodology between the 2017 Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS), previous APS cycles and other Statistics Canada surveys, comparisons of data between sources should be done with caution. The following sections of this document provide a detailed review of items affecting data comparability, providing data users with important information on factors to consider when conducting analyses with APS data.

8.1 Differences between the Aboriginal Peoples Survey and the 2016 Census

The APS selects its sample from respondents with specific responses in the census. More detailed information about how census responses were used to determine the population of interest for the APS is provided in section 3 (Survey design).

The census and the APS are both rich sources of information on Aboriginal peoples that complement each other. The APS takes concepts that are touched on in the census and asks questions that dig deeper in order to provide more detailed information. For instance, the census provides information on labour market activities (which includes: labour force status, class of worker, industry, occupation and work activity during the reference year; from questions 30 to 49). Adding information from the APS provides an opportunity to learn more about part-time employment, permanent work, job satisfaction, looking for work, labour market attachment, past job attachment, labour mobility and other labour activities.

The APS also covers entire topics or themes that are not included in the census. For example, the APS can provide detailed information on the education and health of Aboriginal peoples.

Although both surveys cover the “identity population” by design, the 2017 APS, like the 2012 APS, did not cover the “ancestry-only population” described in section 3. (Census respondents reporting Aboriginal ancestry-only were part of the APS sample because they had a non-negligible probability of reporting identity on the APS, and these respondents only remained in the APS data set if they actually reported Aboriginal identity in the APS.)

In general, the Aboriginal identity population counts on the 2017 APS for certain subpopulations may differ from those obtained from the census, even if the population universe for the census is restricted to that of the APS. The second post-stratification described in section 6.5 ensured that the number of individuals with Aboriginal identity was the same in the census and the APS, but this applied only to certain combinations of Aboriginal group, region and age group. However, the Aboriginal identity population counts may differ for other subpopulations which were not controlled for during post-stratification. Moreover, for a given individual, the Aboriginal identity reported may differ in some cases between the census and the APS. There are a number of reasons why Aboriginal identity may not be the same on both surveys.

8.1.1 Different interview methods and impact of proxy reporting

In most regions 2016 Census data were collected by self-enumeration. Questionnaires were completed on the Internet or returned by mail. For Indian reserves and remote areas, including Inuit communities, census interviewers were used. Often one member of the household completed the census form for all members of the household. This is called proxy reporting.

As described in section 4.2, the APS data were collected by computer-assisted interview (CAI) from the individual selected for most cases. Because the person contacted for the APS may not be the same person who filled in the census questionnaire, there may be some differences in responses to similar questions.

8.1.2. Different questionnaires

The Aboriginal self-reporting question is one of the other sources of discrepancy between the census and the APS. For the 2017 APS, this question was divided into two parts as described in section 2.2. In addition, although there is no question on Aboriginal ancestry in the 2017 APS, the census asks a question on ethnic or cultural origins (question 17) immediately before the census question on Aboriginal self-reporting (question 18). Several Aboriginal origins are included as examples in the census ethnic or cultural origins question. This might affect the responses provided to question 18 on Aboriginal self-reporting.

8.1.3. Different contexts

The census questionnaire asks a limited number of general questions for the entire population of Canada, while the APS is specifically targeted to Aboriginal people. Consequently, given the more refined context of the APS, the concept of Aboriginal identity may be understood more clearly. Hence, it is possible that individuals who had reported being Aboriginal on the census may no longer report themselves as being Aboriginal in the APS. Conversely, individuals who had reported Aboriginal ancestry-only in the census may later report Aboriginal identity in the APS.

8.1.4. Effect of time

The concept of Aboriginal identity may not be a static characteristic in time. Events affecting the rights of certain Aboriginal groups or changes in the general population’s perception of Aboriginal Peoples may affect the way in which Aboriginal identity questions are answered. Individuals who see themselves as having only Aboriginal ancestry at one point in time may later self-report as being Aboriginal. Furthermore, individuals may see themselves as First Nations people at a certain point in time and Métis at another.

8.1.5. Processing

For the 2012 APS, all individuals who were either Status Indian or a member of a First Nation/Indian band but who had not also self-reported as Aboriginal were imputed as being a First Nations person on the APS. This imputation was not repeated in 2017. Instead, the 2017 APS kept these individuals as a separate fourth identity group (Aboriginal responses not included elsewhere). However, since this group was quite small in the 2017 APS, these individuals were combined with First Nations respondents during the post-stratification (see section 6.5). Hence, when comparing Census and 2017 APS Aboriginal identity counts by Aboriginal group, census respondents who were either Status Indian or a member of a First Nation/Indian band and who did not self-report as Aboriginal should be included in the estimate for First Nations people and similarly for APS.

8.1.6. Differences in the estimates

The following tables compare Census estimates to APS estimates for different geographic regions and Aboriginal groups. The four Inuit regions are separated from the rest of Canada.

Table 5 compares Census estimates to APS estimates for the Aboriginal identity population without double counting. This is the Aboriginal identity population aged 15 and over as of January 15, 2017, living in private dwellings excluding persons living on Indian reserves or settlements and excluding certain First Nations communities in Yukon and the Northwest Territories (NWT), which corresponds to the APS coverage. A column has been created for the total of the Census and APS “First Nations” and “Status Indian or member of a First Nation / Indian band only” categories.

Table 6 is similar but reflects the double count. Hence, a person with a multiple identity of First Nations and Métis will be counted in the First Nations category as well as in the Métis category.

All counts in the next tables are rounded to the nearest 10. Since totals are rounded independently from individual cells, the cells may not add up exactly to the corresponding totals.

8.2 Differences between the 2012 APS and the 2017 APS

Some changes took place between the 2012 APS and the 2017 APS, not only in terms of survey content but also in terms of methodology. Because of these changes, caution should be exercised when comparing population estimates from the two surveys. In fact, the APS dissemination strategy has never been focused on the production of Aboriginal population counts. Rather, the strategy was to present the characteristics of the population for certain subgroups using proportions.

8.2.1 Methodological differences

The most significant difference between the 2017 APS and the 2012 APS is the addition of the ‘Aboriginal responses not included elsewhere’ identity group (which includes individuals reporting being a Status Indian or member of a First Nation/Indian band only). In 2012, members of this group were imputed to being a First Nations person. Therefore, when comparing First Nations estimates between the 2012 and 2017 APS, 2017 APS respondents who were either Status Indian or a member of a First Nation/Indian band and who did not self-report as Aboriginal should be included in the estimate for First Nations people. It should be noted that although ‘Aboriginal responses not included elsewhere’ was kept as a distinct identity group in 2017, individuals in this group were combined with First Nations individuals during the post-stratification (see section 6.5) as in 2012.

Another important difference in methodology is the fact that the 2017 APS sample was selected from respondents to the 2016 Census, while the 2012 APS sample was selected from respondents to the 2011 NHS. The characteristics of respondents to the census may be different than those of respondents to the NHS. The fact that non-respondents have different characteristics than respondents creates what is called non-response bias. Despite the fact that the NHS used follow-up strategies and non-response adjustment strategies at weighting to reduce this bias, it is possible that some non-response bias still remains.

8.2.2. Changes to Aboriginal identity questions

Inuit Enrolled under an Inuit Land Claim Agreement

This question appeared in the exit module in the 2012 APS, but has been added into the Identification module of the 2017 APS. Only those who self-identified as Inuit are asked this question.  This question was moved before the Registered Indian and Band membership questions to improve data quality.

Status Indian (Registered or Treaty Indian)

Questions ID_Q04A and ID_Q04B were removed for the 2017 APS. These questions asked if the respondent had applied or had been registered as a Status Indian under Bill C-31 or Bill C-3.  In the 2012 APS, a relatively high percentage of respondents answered ‘don’t know’ to these questions. Therefore, it was decided that these questions would be dropped and that further analysis would rely on data linkages between the APS and the Indian Register.

8.3 Differences between the 2017 APS and the APS - Nunavut Inuit Supplement

As mentioned in section 1.1, the APS—Nunavut Inuit Supplement consisted of a large supplementary sample of Inuit living in Nunavut. Individuals selected for the APS—Nunavut Inuit Supplement and identifying as being enrolled under the Nunavut Agreement (NA) completed the 2017 APS questionnaire as well as an additional set of questions designed to learn more about their availability, interest and level of preparedness for government employment. Please refer to the Aboriginal Peoples Survey—Nunavut Inuit Supplement, 2017: User’s Guide to the Analytical File for more information about this supplement.

Although Nunavut estimates for 2017 APS content can be produced using the 2017 APS sample or the APS—Nunavut Inuit Supplement sample, these estimates can differ for various reasons as discussed in section 8.3.1.  Because of these differences, it is not recommended to compare estimates between the 2017 APS and the APS—Nunavut Inuit Supplement.

8.3.1. Methodological differences

There are many methodological differences between the 2017 APS and the APS - Nunavut Inuit Supplement. To begin, the populations covered by each survey are not the same. The APS - Nunavut Inuit Supplement only includes data for Inuit enrolled under the NA while the 2017 APS includes data for all Inuit (and all other Aboriginal identity groups).

Moreover, the domains of interest and sampling strata were not the same for the two surveys. The 2017 APS sample was selected based on domains of interest defined using geography (Inuit regions, province/territory, Atlantic provinces grouped), Aboriginal group and age group (see section 3.2). In comparison, the APS - Nunavut Inuit Supplement sample was selected based on domains of interest defined by Nunavut community and education group. In fact, the APS - Nunavut Inuit Supplement was designed to produce community-level estimates in Nunavut whereas the 2017 APS was designed to produce estimates only at the Nunavut level.

The domains of interest of each survey also impacted the weighting strategy. For the 2017 APS, the poststratification produced weights so that population counts by geography, Aboriginal group and age group matched 2016 Census totals (see section 6.5). For the APS - Nunavut Inuit Supplement, the poststratification was done for each education group within each Nunavut community. The difference in the weighting strategies can create differences between the estimates produced for the two surveys.

When comparing estimates of the 2017 APS content across different regions in Canada (e.g. comparing estimates for different Inuit regions), the 2017 APS sample should be used to produce the estimates.

Estimates for the APS - Nunavut Inuit Supplement questions should be produced using the APS - Nunavut Inuit Supplement sample. The 2017 APS content for this sample should be used as auxiliary information to enhance the analysis of Inuit enrolled under the NA.

• Previous
• Next