Friday, 10 February 2012

What's Up in Kenora?

The release of the 2011 census results for Northwestern Ontario were disappointing given the population declines that were registered.  There is however one curiosity if one goes back to the 2001 Census.  When the three Districts of the Northwest are compared over the period 2001 to 2011, Kenora District is a bit of an anomaly.  Between 2001 and 2006, while the Thunder Bay District and the Rainy District registered population declines, Kenora registered a 4.2 percent increase - or 2,617 more people.  Now, from 2006 to 2011, Kenora shows a bigger decline than either the Thunder Bay or Rainy River district at -10.6 percent or a drop of 6,812 people.  The increase in Kenora District between 2001 and 2006 was attributed in large part to the growing First Nation population and their high birth rates.  So what happened?  Has the birth rate collapsed?  Has a mass out-migration of non-aboriginal population counteracted the growing aboriginal population?  Did the Census somehow not enumerate large numbers of first Nations residents in the outlying reserves this time around?  Hopefully, there will be answers to these questions.

UPDATE: MONDAY FEBRUARY 13TH. Well, it turns out as announced this morning on the CBC Thunder Bay News that Statistics Canada has announced it missed 13 remote First Nations when it conducted the Census and did them in the fall with the updated numbers for Northwestern Ontario to be released soon.  It would have been nice to know this when the numbers were initially released.  After all, it likely means the population of the region as a whole probably did not drop 4.7 percent.  Who knows, maybe it even went up?  Let's hope the government waits for a final tally before reallocating seats in the House of Commons.

1 comment:

  1. There was a coordinated revolt against the census a few years ago by FN concerned that the numbers would be used as an excuse by DIA to reduce allocations to the reserve communities. The Stats Can numbers have been fairly wonky ever since.
    In the 2006 census, the Killarney area showed a steep decline in population that, anecdotally at least, wasn't showing up on the ground.
    I wonder if the issue is the rounding effect that Stats Can uses to protect privacy impacting divisions with a large number of reporting sections with a population under 5.

    ReplyDelete

Comments in respectful and appropriate language welcome.