When educational attainment is factored in, the employed First Nations population with a bachelor’s degree or higher scored on par in literacy with their counterparts in the non-Indigenous population. In contrast, those in the overall Indigenous population who are unemployed and have a bachelor’s degree or higher scored higher than their non-Indigenous counterparts.
Numeracy results differ from those in literacy, in that employed Registered Indians and First Nations adults with bachelor’s degrees or higher scored lower than their non-Indigenous counterparts.40 It was also found that the employed Métis population scored similarly in literacy and numeracy to the employed non-Indigenous population within each level of educational attainment.
Occupation
To delve deeper into the skills profiles of Indigenous peoples in the labour force, we now turn to the
occupational profiles of Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations as well as to the association between skills and occupation.
The distribution of occupational categories among Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples is almost identical, with two exceptions: management occupations, which account for almost twice the percentage of jobs among the non-Indigenous
population compared to the Indigenous populations; and trades, transport, and equipment operators, a category that accounts for 19 percent of jobs among Indigenous peoples, compared with 13 percent of jobs among the non-Indigenous population.
Mapping literacy scores by occupational categories reveals that skill levels are fairly similar between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups in most categories. There are, however some exceptions, with non-Indigenous respondents scoring higher in literacy than Indigenous respondents holding occupations in the category education, law and social, community, and government services. In numeracy, differences in scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous respondents in the same occupational category were larger and more significant. Figures 4.10 and 4.11 show average scores in literacy and numeracy, respectively, for the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations aged 16 to 65, by National Occupational Classification. In numeracy, non-Indigenous respondents
40 See Table 4.1d, Appendix II for more data on educational attainment and employment status among Indigenous populations.
significantly outperformed their Indigenous counterparts in occupations in the following categories: management;
business, finance, and administration; education, law and social, community, and government services; art, culture, recreation, and sport; sales and service; and trades, transport, and equipment operation.
Figure 4.10 Literacy – Average scores for population aged 16 to 65, by National Occupational Classification, Indigenous population and non-Indigenous population, Canada, 2012
285 282 293 279 277* 283 259 250 260 256292 286 299 283 293 299 266 257 266 254
100
Source: Table 4.2a in Appendix II
* Denotes a statistically significant difference between the scores of non-Indigenous and Indigenous respondents in the same occupational category
A – Management
B – Business, finance, and administration
C – Natural and applied sciences and related occupations D – Health
E – Education, law and social, community, and government services F – Art, culture, recreation, and sport
G – Sales and service
H – Trades, transport, and equipment operators and related I – Natural resources, agriculture, and related production J – Manufacturing and utilities
Figure 4.11 Numeracy – Average scores for population aged 16 to 65, by National Occupation Classification, Indigenous population and non-Indigenous population, Canada, 2012
Indigenous Non-Indigenous
275* 264* 289 261 261* 262* 242* 242* 254 248288 277 303 272 282 287 257 257 260 250
100
Source: Table 4.2a in Appendix II
* Denotes a statistically significant difference between the scores of non-Indigenous and Indigenous respondents in the same occupational category
A – Management
B – Business, finance, and administration
C – Natural and applied sciences and related occupations D – Health
E – Education, law and social, community, and government services F – Art, culture, recreation, and sport
G – Sales and service
H – Trades, transport, and equipment operators and related I – Natural resources, agriculture, and related production J – Manufacturing and utilities
Industry
A similar approach can be taken when examining results by industry. Disaggregating by industry divides employment into different sectors of the economy (e.g., agriculture, manufacturing, public administration).
Here again, the distribution of employment among Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations shows a similar pattern, with the proportion of each group roughly the same in 13 of 16 categories. In 3 categories, however, there are significant differences: manufacturing accounts for 11 percent of employment among the non-Indigenous population, compared with only 6 percent of employment among Indigenous peoples; professional, scientific, and technical services accounts for 8 percent of employment among the non-Indigenous population, compared with 4 percent among Indigenous people;
and public administration accounts for 6 percent of employment among the non-Indigenous population, whereas this figure rises to 9 percent among the Indigenous population.
In contrast to the distribution of skills by occupation, where differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples are not especially notable, the distribution of skills by industry type reveals significant gaps between the two groups. Figure 4.12 shows the difference in literacy scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations aged 16 to 65 employed in the same industry. The most notable differences exist in the industry of finance, insurance, real estate, and leasing, where non-Indigenous respondents scored 23 points higher than Indigenous respondents in literacy, and in professional, scientific, and technical services, where the gap is 19 points. Statistically significant gaps of between 13 and 16 points are also found in information, culture, and recreation; health care and social assistance; accommodation and food services;
and public administration.
Figure 4.13 shows the differences in numeracy scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations aged 16 to 65 employed in the same industry. Compared to literacy, in numeracy there are slightly larger gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees working in the same Industry, and gaps are noticeable in a greater number of industries.
Finally, if the economy is viewed as two broad sectors—
the goods-producing sector and the services-producing sector—we can observe that Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples are employed in each sector in similar proportions. At the pan-Canadian level, close to 80 percent of individuals in the non-Indigenous population and in all Indigenous groups worked in the services-producing sector (see Figure 4.14).
Figure 4.12 Literacy – Difference in scores between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations aged 16 to 65 employed in the same industry (North American Industry Classification System), Canada, 2012
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, oil, and gas Business, building, and other support services Construction Public administration Accommodation and food services Health care and social assistance Information, culture, and recreation
Professional, scientific, and technical servicesFinance, insurance, real estate, and leasing 23 16 19
Source: Table 4.3a in Appendix II
Note: This figure illustrates gaps in scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous workers across a variety of sectors. Bars demonstrating values greater than zero indicate the average number of points by which non-Indigenous individuals outscored Indigenous individuals in the same sector. Bars demonstrating values below zero indicate the opposite trend. The striped bars indicate statistically significant differences in average scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals in those sectors.
Figure 4.13 Numeracy – Difference in scores between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations aged 16 to 65 employed in the same industry (North American Industry Classification System), Canada, 2012
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Transportation and warehousingEducational servicesManufacturingOther servicesAgricultureUtilitiesTrade
Forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, oil, and gasBusiness, building, and other support servicesProfessional, scientific, and technical servicesFinance, insurance, real estate, and leasingInformation, culture, and recreationAccommodation and food servicesHealth care and social assistancePublic administrationConstruction 31 28
Source: Table 4.3a in Appendix II
Note: This figure illustrates gaps in scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous workers across a variety of sectors. Bars demonstrating values greater than zero indicate the average number of points by which non-Indigenous individuals outscored Indigenous individuals in the same sector. Bars demonstrating values below zero indicate the opposite trend. The striped bars indicate statistically significant differences in average scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals in those sectors.
Figure 4.14 Proportion of population aged 16 to 65, by Indigenous identification and sector of employment, Canada, 2012
Source: Table 4.4a in Appendix II
Comparing skills within sectors, we find no significant differences in literacy scores in the goods-producing sector between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, except in Northwest Territories and Nunavut, where the non-Indigenous population scored higher. In numeracy, the non-Indigenous population scored higher than their Indigenous counterparts at the pan-Canadian level and in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.41
In the services-producing sector, the non-Indigenous population scored significantly higher in literacy than their Indigenous counterparts at the pan-Canadian level, and in Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Saskatchewan. Figure 4.15 shows average scores in literacy for the Indigenous and non-Indigenous population aged 16 to 65 working in the services-producing sector for the oversampled populations.
It should be noted that the Indigenous population in Ontario employed in the services-producing sector scored almost the same as the non-Indigenous population in literacy.
In numeracy, the differences in scores between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous respondents employed in the services-producing sector grow slightly over those in literacy. Figure 4.16 shows average scores in numeracy for the Indigenous and non-Indigenous
41 See Table 4.4a in Appendix II for more information on scores by sector for Indigenous populations.
populations aged 16 to 65 in the services-producing sector across the oversampled populations. The non-Indigenous population scored significantly higher in numeracy than their Indigenous counterparts at the pan-Canadian level and in all oversampled populations except Manitoba and Yukon.
Figure 4.15 Literacy – Average scores for population aged 16 to 65 working in the services-producing sector, Indigenous population and non-Indigenous population, Canada and oversampled populations, 2012
Indigenous
Non-Indigenous
282 274 235* 275 259 261* 212* 270*284 281 285 283 290 280 295 282
100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325
Average score Ontario Manitoba Northwest Territories British Columbia Yukon Saskatchewan Nunavut Canada
Source: Table 4.4a in Appendix II
* Denotes a statistically significant difference between the scores of non-Indigenous and Indigenous respondents in the services-producing sector
Figure 4.16 Numeracy – Average scores for population aged 16 to 65 working in the services-producing sector, Indigenous population and non-Indigenous population, Canada and oversampled populations, 2012
Indigenous
Non-Indigenous
Ontario Manitoba Northwest Territories British Columbia Yukon Saskatchewan Nunavut Canada
255* 265 219* 259* 247 246* 195* 255*275 271 275 274 275 272 284 273
100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325
Average score
Source: Table 4.4a in Appendix II
* Denotes a statistically significant difference between the scores of non-Indigenous and Indigenous respondents in the services-producing sector
Interestingly, a comparison of skills across these two broad sectors reveals a significant difference between Indigenous and Indigenous populations. While non-Indigenous respondents in the services-producing sector scored significantly higher in literacy and numeracy than those in the goods-producing sector, this is not the case with Indigenous respondents. At the pan-Canadian level, no significant differences were found in literacy or numeracy scores of Indigenous respondents employed in the goods- or services-producing sector. This is generally true at the provincial and territorial level as well, with the exception of Ontario, where the total Indigenous population in the goods-producing sector scored lower in literacy than those in the services-producing sector.
Among Métis respondents, this difference is statistically significant only in Ontario and Manitoba.42
Examination of skills proficiency in the services-producing sector, where the majority of respondents are employed, by Indigenous identification, uncovers some differences as well. Figures 4.17 and 4.18 present average scores for literacy and numeracy, respectively, for the population aged 16 to 65 working in the services-producing sector, by Indigenous identification in Canada.
Notably, Métis respondents employed in the services-producing sector scored significantly higher in both literacy and numeracy than other Indigenous groups, and their literacy scores are in fact comparable to those of non-Indigenous respondents in the same sector. In contrast, Inuit respondents employed in the services-producing sector scored much lower in numeracy and literacy than First Nations and Métis.
42 Please see Table 4.4a in Appendix II for data regarding the scores of Indigenous populations across both goods- and services-producing sectors, disaggregated by province and territory.
Figure 4.17 Literacy – Average scores for population aged 16 to 65 working in the services-producing sector, by Indigenous identification, Canada 2012
264 263 280
220
282
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Average score
First Nations Registered Indians
Métis Inuit Non-Indigenous
Source: Table 4.4a in Appendix II
Figure 4.18 Numeracy – Average scores for population aged 16 to 65 working in the services-producing sector, by Indigenous identification, Canada 2012
First Nations Registered Indians
Métis Inuit Non-Indigenous
247 245 267
203
273
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Average score
Source: Table 4.4a in Appendix II
Conclusion
The foundational skills assessed by the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)—literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments (PS-TRE)—are important building blocks for information processing and analysis. These skills support individuals in much of modern life, especially in their participation in the labour force. These skills are also critical to the acquisition of those higher-level skills that allow people to thrive in a competitive global economy characterized by an increasing reliance on technology. This report has examined these foundational skills among the Indigenous peoples of Canada living off reserve. It is important that the results summarized below be carefully reviewed within the unique contexts surrounding the experiences of Indigenous peoples in Canada, as discussed in the Introduction to this report.
In the area of literacy, Indigenous peoples in Canada show lower proficiency than both the OECD and Canadian averages. Within this population, First Nations and Registered Indians scored below the Canadian average; Métis show comparatively high proficiency, scoring at the Canadian average; and Inuit scored well below. It is noteworthy, however, that, when the data are disaggregated for levels of educational attainment, gaps in literacy scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples at the same educational attainment level are vastly reduced.
In numeracy, Indigenous peoples also show lower proficiency scores than the OECD and Canadian averages—and here the gap is larger than it is in literacy. First Nations and Registered Indians scored significantly lower than both these averages; Métis fall below the Canadian average by a small amount; and Inuit scored lower by a very wide margin. In contrast to literacy, there are differences, although not especially large, in numeracy between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations at every level of educational attainment except at the level of bachelor’s degree or higher. The gap is most notable among those with less than a high-school diploma.
In PS-TRE, Indigenous peoples show comparable skills to the OECD average and only slightly lower skills than the Canadian average. Significantly, their participation rate in the PS-TRE assessment is noticeably above the OECD average, suggesting a greater familiarity with computer technology, although that rate is below the Canadian average. Among First Nations and Registered Indians, the percentage scoring at the highest levels is somewhat lower than the Canadian average, as is the percentage participating in the computer-based assessment. Here Métis show especially strong skills, with the percentage that scored at the highest proficiency levels matching that of the Canadian population as a whole, and the participation rate exceeding the Canadian average. Among Inuit, the percentage scoring at the highest levels is much lower than the Canadian average, while almost half of this group did not complete the computer-based assessment.
These results point to areas for further analysis and exploration. As is apparent from the contextual information provided in the Introduction to this report, understanding the historical and cultural context of Indigenous peoples in Canada is critical to accurately interpreting skills outcomes. It is evident that many factors contribute to the gap in foundational skills between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, reflecting the numerous differences between these two populations and among Indigenous peoples themselves. To give just one instance, the results for Inuit in all three domains are likely attributable, at least in part, to the fact that very large proportions of Inuit took the PIAAC assessment in a language (English or French) that was different from their mother tongue.
One factor that merits special mention is the history of residential schools, which severely disrupted Indigenous family and community life and largely failed to provide educational opportunities to Indigenous students. A salient result of this history is the comparatively low educational attainment rates among Indigenous peoples. As noted in Chapter 3, the proportion of Indigenous peoples who have completed a bachelor’s degree or higher is much lower than that for the non-Indigenous population, while the proportion who have less than a high-school diploma is higher.
The difference in educational attainment rates goes a long way to explaining the proficiency profiles of the two groups, as the gap in skill level diminishes greatly when one compares Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples who have the same level of education. Another crucial factor to continually consider is the pervasiveness of systemic discrimination, inherited from the racist colonization policies that prioritized assimilation, established external control, and stripped Indigenous people of their identities and self-determination (Aquash, 2013). The outcomes presented here should thus be examined in the context of other data, as well as local economic, historical, and cultural conditions, with the goal of developing programs and policies suitable to Indigenous populations in each province and territory of Canada.
References
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). (2013). Aboriginal demographics from the 2011 National Household Survey. Retrieved from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ-AI/STAGING/texte-text/abo_demo2013_1370443844970_eng.pdf
Aboriginal Children in Care Working Group. (2015). Aboriginal children in care: Report to Canada’s premiers.
Ottawa: Council of the Federation Secretariat. Retrieved from https://www.canadaspremiers.ca/aboriginal-children-in-care/
Aquash, M. (2013). First Nations in Canada: Decolonization and self-determination. in education, 19(2), 120-137. Retrieved from https://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/view/142/618
Assembly of First Nations. (2015). Description of First Nations. Retrieved from http://www.afn.ca/en/about-afn/description-of-the-afn
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2011). Trends in higher education: Vol. 1. Enrolment.
Retrieved from https://www.univcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/trends-vol1-enrolment-june-2011.
Ball, J. (2014). Trouble on the frontier: The perils of persisting colonial language policies in Canada.
In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Multilingualism and language in education: Sociolinguistic and pedagogical perspectives from Commonwealth countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ball, J., & McIvor, O. (2013). Canada’s big chill: Indigenous languages in education. In C. Benson & K.
Kosonen (Eds.), Language issues in comparative education: Inclusive teaching and learning in non-dominant languages and cultures. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Barnes, R., Josefowitz, N., & Cole, E. (2006). Residential schools: Impact on Aboriginal students’ academic and cognitive development. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 21(1/2), 18–32. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573506298751
Battiste, M. (2009). Aboriginal Peoples and Systemic Discrimination. Directions, 5(1), 4–7. Retrieved from https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/en/directions/item/23813-systemic-discrimination-against-aboriginal-peoples-vol-5-no-1
Bertsch, M., & Bidgood, B. A. (2010). Why is adoption like a First Nations feast? Lax Kw’alaam indigenizing adoptions in child welfare. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 5(1), 96–105. Retrieved from http://
journals.sfu.ca/fpcfr/index.php/FPCFR/article/view/178/147
Blackstock, C. (2011). The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on First Nations child welfare: Why if Canada wins, equality and justice lose. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 187–194. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.002
Blackstock, C., & Trocmé, N. (2005). Community-based child welfare for Aboriginal children: Supporting resilience through structural change. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24, 12–33. Retrieved from https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj24/24-pages12-33.pdf
Bobet, E. (2015). Results from the 2011–2012 Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies survey among Aboriginal people. Unpublished report. Prepared for Aboriginal Affairs and
Bobet, E. (2015). Results from the 2011–2012 Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies survey among Aboriginal people. Unpublished report. Prepared for Aboriginal Affairs and