Eric Guimond

Indigenous well-being in four countries: An application of the UNDP'S Human Development Index to Indigenous Peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States

BackgroundCanada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand consistently place near the top of the United Nations Development Programmes Human Development Index (HDI) rankings, yet all have minority Indigenous populations with much poorer health and social conditions than non-Indigenous peoples. It is unclear just how the socioeconomic and health status of Indigenous peoples in these countries has changed in recent decades, and it remains generally unknown whether the overall conditions of Indigenous peoples are improving and whether the gaps between Indigenous peoples and other citizens have indeed narrowed. There is unsettling evidence that they may not have. It was the purpose of this study to determine how these gaps have narrowed or widened during the decade 1990 to 2000.MethodsCensus data and life expectancy estimates from government sources were used to adapt the Human Development Index (HDI) to examine how the broad social, economic, and health status of Indigenous populations in these countries have changed since 1990. Three indices – life expectancy, educational attainment, and income – were combined into a single HDI measure.ResultsBetween 1990 and 2000, the HDI scores of Indigenous peoples in North America and New Zealand improved at a faster rate than the general populations, closing the gap in human development. In Australia, the HDI scores of Indigenous peoples decreased while the general populations improved, widening the gap in human development. While these countries are considered to have high human development according to the UNDP, the Indigenous populations that reside within them have only medium levels of human development.ConclusionThe inconsistent progress in the health and well-being of Indigenous populations over time, and relative to non-Indigenous populations, points to the need for further efforts to improve the social, economic, and physical health of Indigenous peoples.

Birth outcomes in the Inuit-inhabited areas of Canada

Background: Information on health disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations is essential for developing public health programs aimed at reducing such disparities. The lack of data on disparities in birth outcomes between Inuit and non-Inuit populations in Canada prompted us to compare birth outcomes in Inuit-inhabited areas with those in the rest of the country and in other rural and northern areas of Canada. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of all births in Canada during 1990–2000 using linked vital data. We identified 13 642 births to residents of Inuit-inhabited areas and 4 054 489 births to residents of all other areas. The primary outcome measures were preterm birth, stillbirth and infant death. Results: Compared with the rest of Canada, Inuit-inhabited areas had substantially higher rates of preterm birth (risk ratio [RR] 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38–1.52), stillbirth (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.38–2.04) and infant death (RR 3.61, 95% CI 3.17–4.12). The risk ratios and absolute differences in risk for these outcomes changed little over time. Excess mortality was observed for all major causes of infant death, including congenital anomalies (RR 1.64), immaturity-related conditions (RR 2.96), asphyxia (RR 2.43), sudden infant death syndrome (RR 7.15), infection (RR 8.32) and external causes (RR 7.30). Maternal characteristics accounted for only a small part of the risk disparities. Substantial risk ratios for preterm birth, stillbirth and infant death remained when the comparisons were restricted to other rural or northern areas of Canada. Interpretation: The Inuit-inhabited areas had much higher rates of preterm birth, stillbirth and infant death compared with the rest of Canada and with other rural and northern areas. There is an urgent need for more effective interventions to improve maternal and infant health in Inuit-inhabited areas.

Charting the Growth of Canada’s Aboriginal Populations: Problems, Options and Implications

Toward the end of the 20th century, the number of persons reporting Aboriginal ancestry in the Canadian Census increased in a rather dramatic manner. For example, in the 2001 Canadian Census, over 1.3 million Canadians reported an Aboriginal origin, which is an increase of about 20 percent over the previous census in 1996. Given that much confusion and inadequate information characterises public discussions of the demographics of Canada’s Aboriginal population, this paper will review the most fundamental data sources and definitions that have been used in documenting the characteristics of this population, as well as outline some of the most important obstacles to be faced in enacting meaningful quantitative research in this context.

Fuzzy Definitions and Demographic Explosion of Aboriginal Populations in Canada from 1986 to 2006

In their common desire to conduct research and gather information on Aboriginal social issues, demographers and other specialists in populations, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, have often neglected two basic questions: Why is it so hard to define Aboriginal populations in Canada? How can the recent demographic explosion be explained? The answer to these questions is essential, since they play a significant role in the enumeration of Aboriginal populations (Which definition shall be used?), in the monitoring of their socio-economic characteristics (How shall recent trends be interpreted?) and in the development of policies and programs aimed at improving the living conditions of Aboriginal populations (Who are the recipients?). The purpose of this article is to examine these two fundamental questions using a demographic perspective.

Intergenerational Ethnic Mobility among Canadian Aboriginal Populations in 2001

This article deals with the contribution of intergenerational ethnic mobility to the demographic reproduction of the Aboriginal groups in Canada: the North American Indians, the Metis and the Inuit. To this effect, it attempts to see if children in husband/wife census families keep the identity of their parents. As expected, children from endogamous couples generally keep their parents’ identity. However, for most children from exogamous couples formed by an Aboriginal person and a non-Aboriginal person, the Aboriginal identity prevails over the non-Aboriginal identity. If Aboriginal identities were “not attractive” identities when declaring the ethnic affiliation of children in situations of exogamous unions, then the size of the Aboriginal population in Canada would be significantly smaller.