August 2019604-170 Laurier Ave. West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5V5613-233-8891
csls@csls.ca

CENTRE FOR THE
STUDY OF LIVING
STANDARDS

An Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities

Nicole Johnston and Andrew Sharpe

August 2019

CSLS Research Report 2019-04
Prepared for the National Indigenous Economic Development BoardAn Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities
Abstract
This report sheds light on the deficiencies in infrastructure faced by Canada’s remote
Indigenous communities by quantifying the level of infrastructure in 236 remote communities in
Canada’s North. This quantification is done through a composite index based on 13
infrastructure indicators, including availability of broadband, roads, airports, the electrical grid,
health care, education, water, and housing, with values ranging from 0 to 1. This report compares
the level of infrastructure found in remote Indigenous communities both with remote nonIndigenous northern communities and southern cities. Indigenous communities are broken downby the three heritage groups: First Nations, Inuit and Métis. While the southern cities identified
in the 2016 Census as Census Metropolitan Areas have an average index score of 0.97, remote
Indigenous communities saw a score of 0.45 and remote non-Indigenous communities a score of
0.82. Inuit communities face the lowest level of infrastructure (an index score of 0.31), andremote Indigenous communities in Nunavut fared the lowest of the jurisdictions with a score of
0.30.

ii

An Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ii
Contents.............................................................................. .......................................................... iii
Executive Summary.............................................................................. ........................................ 1
Introduction.............................................................................. ..................................................... 5
Methodology .............................................................................. ...................................................6
Key Characteristics......................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology of selection of communities .....................................................................................7
Definition of Indigenous communities ...............................................................................7
Selection of communities and geographic coverage............................................................8
Coverage over time............................................................................................................11
Constraints on Infrastructure Related to Community Size and Remoteness.....................12
Methodology of creation of the Index.......................................................................................... 12
Selection of indicators...................................................................................................... 12
Allocation of values ..........................................................................................................15
Weighting of indicators.................................................................................................... 17
Formula .............................................................................................................................18
Weighted averages ............................................................................................................19
Data Sources................................................................................................................................. 20
Data collection methods ...................................................................................................20
Data Sources .....................................................................................................................20
Analysis of the Estimates of the Infrastructure Index for Indigenous Communities ...................23
Results for Canada............................................................................................................ 23
Overall Index........................................................................................................ 23
Sub-Indexes for Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure .............................25
Components of the Economic Infrastructure Sub-Index ..........................26
Components of the Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Index .................28
Heath care infrastructure ..............................................................28
Education infrastructure ...............................................................29
Water Infrastructure ....................................................................29
Housing Infrastructure .................................................................30
Results for the Provinces and Territories..........................................................................30
Overall Index....................................................................................................... 30
Economic versus Quality of Life Infrastructure ..................................................31
Conclusion and Future Work........................................................................................... 32
Key Findings ........................................................................................................32
Future Work .........................................................................................................39iii

An Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities
Executive Summary
This report develops an infrastructure index for Canada’s remote Indigenous
communities. Remote communities were identified on the basis of physical geography, climate
and latitude. The basic unit of analysis for the index is the community, with community data
aggregated into sub-provincial/territorial data, provincial/territorial data and national data. Of
these 236 communities, 200 were identified as Indigenous (over 50% of the population
identifying as Aboriginal in Census 2016) and 36 were identified as non-Indigenous. Withinthese Indigenous communities, 134 were identified as predominantly First Nations, 17 as Métis,and 49 as Inuk/Inuit.
The infrastructure index itself was developed using 13 indicators of infrastructure, which
comprised seven types of infrastructure: access to basic broadband, transportation (comprised ofroads, ports/harbors, and airports), access to the electrical grid, health care, education (comprisedof on-site schools and community colleges), water (comprised of water treatment, water
distribution, and water quality), and housing (comprised of housing quantity and housing
quality). These types of infrastructure can be further aggregated to form the two sub-indices of
economic infrastructure and quality of life infrastructure, which then comprise the overall index.
A system of coding was used to rank-order and enumerate the response categories foreach of these infrastructure indicators. This system assigned values from 0 to 1 to each category,creating a numerical score for each indicator in each community, which could be used to
calculate scores for the seven types of infrastructure, two sub-indices and the overall index.
These calculations used a system of weighting that assigns equal value to each of the subcomponents within the types of infrastructure, equal weighting to each type of infrastructure in a
sub-index, and equal weighting to the sub-indices comprising the overall index.
All data were gathered from open-source documentation, including publically accessible
federal and provincial/territorial government resources. For certain indicators in the territories
and the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, the dataset associated with thereport Study on Addressing the Infrastructure Needs of Northern Aboriginal Communities
developed for the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board by Centre for the North at
the Conference Board of Canada was consulted.
The main focus in the analysis of this report is the gap between the infrastructure in
remote Indigenous communities and that in southern Canada, the benchmark for the overall
infrastructure index, the seven types of infrastructure, and the 13 infrastructure indicators. To
understand this gap, the average infrastructure index score for the 32 communities in southern
Canada identified as Census Metropolitan Areas has been calculated to be 0.97. Comparisons arealso be made between territories and provinces, between Indigenous communities and nonIndigenous communities in remote areas, and between specific Indigenous heritage groups for1the overall infrastructure index, the seven types of infrastructure, and the 13 infrastructure
indicators.
In an analysis of national averages, the report finds that for the 200 Indigenous
communities that have been defined as remote for the purposes of this report, the average
infrastructure index in 2018 (or the latest data available) is 0.45 on a scale from 0 to 1 on an
unweighted basis (i.e. communities of all sizes are treated equally) and 0.47 on a populationweighted basis. While there is a clear gap present between these remote Indigenous communities
and the benchmark of 0.97, this is not a particularly useful value if not disaggregated as it masks
disparities related to size of community.
As noted, there are significant differences in the infrastructure index between Indigenous
remote communities and non-Indigenous remote communities. On an unweighted basis the index
value for Indigenous communities was 0.37 points lower than for non-Indigenous communities(0.45 versus 0.82). The gap was even greater on a population-weighted basis, 0.47 points (0.47
versus 0.94).
To explain these results, it is natural to look to community size as a possible explanation
for these infrastructure deficiencies. In small, remote communities with a population of fewer
than 1,000, the feasibility of sustaining a school or hospital may be quite low. While size does
explain some of the difference, it does not account for the entire gap. The unweighted score of
the 11 remote non-Indigenous remote communities with a population under 1,000 (seven ofwhich are in Yukon) was 0.68, closer to the average for Indigenous communities of the same size
(0.44). Although the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous of this size and remoteness issmaller than the overall infrastructure gap, it still clearly exists in all provinces and territories
included in this study.
The value of the infrastructure index varies by heritage groups. The 17 Métis
communities in the dataset of remote communities have an unweighted index value of 0.64, thehighest, followed by the 134 First Nations communities at 0.48 and then the 49 Inuit
communities at 0.31.
The comparison of index values between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups cancontinue at that sub-index level. Non-Indigenous communities fare nearly the same in both
Economic Infrastructure (0.81) and Quality of Life Infrastructure (0.83). On average, Indigenous
communities demonstrate a similar pattern with Economic Infrastructure scoring 0.48 andQuality of Life Infrastructure 0.42; however, this is not indicative of the situation for all
Indigenous groups, as seen when the data is disaggregated by heritage group. While this patternholds true for First Nations communities (0.56 versus 0.39) and Métis communities (0.78 versus0.50), Inuit communities see a higher Quality of Life Index than Economic Index (0.14 versus0.48), due largely to their lack of roads, access to the electricity grid, and access to adequate
broadband.
Among the three components of the Economic Infrastructure sub-index, access to theenergy grid scores the highest with a value of 0.56 for Indigenous communities. Whiletransportation scores the lowest for Indigenous communities at 0.39, it is important to analyze
the sub-components of this type of infrastructure to understand the causes of this value. The
2

score for transportation infrastructure in Indigenous communities comes from three subcomponents: roads (0.52), water transportation (0.50) and airports (0.22). While Indigenous
communities on average score lowest for access to an on-site airport with regularly scheduled
passenger flights (0.22), so do non-Indigenous communities (0.33). Conversely, non-Indigenous
remote communities score quite well at 0.97 for access to the Canadian National Roads System,
whereas Indigenous communities fall short of this score at only 0.52. The largest disparities forthe sub-component of energy are seen between heritage groups wherein Métis communities scoreat 1.00 and Inuit communities score 0.00, with First Nations scoring an average of 0.70.
The quality of life infrastructure sub-index consists of four components: health care,education, water, and housing. The latter three of these components are in turn made up of subcomponents or indicators. In terms of the four components, the quality of life infrastructure gap
or deficit between remote Indigenous communities and Canadian CMAs (index value of 0.97) is
the least for water (an index value of 0.71), followed by education (0.44), health care (0.39), andhousing (0.16). This pattern is similar for the three heritage groups.
The largest deficit in water infrastructure between Indigenous communities andbenchmark communities in southern Canada is in water distribution, with the former at 0.57,
followed by water treatment (0.61) and water quality (0.94).
In terms of schools, the average score for remote Indigenous communities is 0.67, not too
far behind that for remote non-Indigenous communities (0.93). Not surprisingly, the presence ofor access to communities colleges is limited in remote communities, whether Indigenous or nonIndigenous. The score for Indigenous communities is 0.20; however, non-Indigenous
communities still fare better with a score of 0.60.
The health care indicator for remote Indigenous communities scored 0.39, less than one
half that of remote non-Indigenous communities (0.83).
The lowest scores comprising the quality of life infrastructure belong to the indicatorscomprising housing infrastructure. The score for housing quantity in Indigenous communities is0.23. The situation is even worse for housing quality at 0.09. The picture is much less bleak inremote non-Indigenous communities for housing quantity at 0.92 and somewhat less bleak forhousing quality at 0.69.
The index values can also be compared across the 10 jurisdictions represented in theselection of the 236 communities in this report. The jurisdiction that has the highest index value,
meaning the smallest infrastructure deficit between Indigenous communities and cities insouthern Canada, was Saskatchewan at 0.58. Second was Yukon (0.56), followed by Alberta(0.54), British Columbia (0.51), Manitoba (0.46), and Northwest Territories (0.45). The
jurisdiction with the lowest score was Nunavut at 0.30, followed by Newfoundland and Labrador(0.32), Quebec (0.36), and Ontario (0.41).
This report represents a first attempt to construct an infrastructure index for remotecommunities in Canada. It is a work in progress. The report has developed a composite
infrastructure index for 236 remote communities. Estimates or scores out of 1.0 are provided for3the overall infrastructure index, the economic and quality of life infrastructure sub-indexes, theseven types or components of infrastructure and 13 infrastructure indicators by province andterritory, with disaggregation by Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, and by heritagegroup. These results, over 3,000 community-indicator data points, are contained in a large Excel
file accompanying this report.
As this report is starting point for future work, an agenda of future work has been createdto allow for an expansion of this project. Understanding the limits of the data collected, theagenda proposes a refinement of the 13 indicators and the scoring scheme to account for
additional information and more granular details rather than access to basic forms ofinfrastructure (i.e. including seasonal road access, services provided by and quality of healthcare, etc.). The agenda also proposes expanding the communities used to include non-Indigenous
communities in northern Quebec and northern Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as remotecommunities on the BC coast and non-remote Indigenous communities. The agenda also
proposes a longitudinal study to ensure that the data is updated while tracking trends ininfrastructure changes. This study could include historical estimates. Finally, analytical work
could be done to better understand the infrastructure gaps between Indigenous and nonIndigenous communities, with a focus on controlling for community size and other factors that
may in part or fully explain these gaps.

4

An Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities1
Introduction
In order to produce a more complete picture of the Indigenous economy in Canada, there
is a need to develop tools and metrics to more accurately measure and understand theinfrastructure supporting the economic participation of Indigenous populations in Canada.
There is a broad consensus in both the theoretical and empirical literature that the
infrastructure endowment of a country or community represents a critical factor for sustainableeconomic growth. The report Methodological Issues in the Construction of an Indigenous
Infrastructure Index produced by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards and delivered to
INAC in early January 2018 reviewed the relationship between infrastructure and economic
development in the context of Indigenous communities and concluded there was a st rong
rationale for a focus on infrastructure in any benchmarking of Indigenous progress indicators.
Established in 1990, the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board (NAEDB) isa Governor in Council appointed board mandated to provide advice and guidance to the federal
government on issues related to Indigenous economic development. The Aboriginal Economic
Benchmarking Report, published in 2012, was the first document to assemble a comprehensive
group of indicators and to establish benchmarks to measure the social and economic well-being
for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. In 2015, the NAEDB released the Aboriginal Economic
Progress Report, the first update to the Aboriginal Economic Benchmarking Report. The
NAEDB is committed to preparing a second Aboriginal Economic Progress Report to track andassess advancements made in 2018 on closing the gaps. The NAEDB is considering the inclusionof an Indigenous Infrastructure Index in that report.
Based on the methodology developed in the report Methodological Issues in theConstruction of an Indigenous Infrastructure Index, this report empirically develops an
1

Contributions to this document were made by the following CSLS staff: James Ashwell, Nicole
Johnston, Myeonwan Kim, Sebastian Tansil and John Tsang under the supervision of CSLS Executive
Director Dr. Andrew Sharpe. The CSLS would like to thank Elizabeth Logue and Sandra Romain at
Indigenous Services Canada for comments on initial drafts of the report. This report was prepared in
Spring 2018 using the most recent publically available and was prepared for the National Indigenous
Economic Development Board to be referenced in the 2019 Indigenous Economic Progress Report. This
report is available online on the NAEDB website: http://www.naedb-cndea.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/NIEDB-2019-Indigenous-Economic-Progress-Report.pdf. In August 2019, theCSLS published a supplementary report titled “An Improved Connectivity Component for an
Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities,” developing the indicator used to measurebroadband in this report.
Emails: njohn070@uottawa.ca, andrew.sharpe@csls.ca.
5Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities. The Index includes regional
disaggregation and disaggregation by heritage group. To allow comparability with similarly
situated non-Indigenous communities, the Index is also calculated for remote non-Indigenous
communities.
The report consists of three main sections. The first section will lay out the methodology
for the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities (IIRIC), including thedefinition of Indigenous communities, types of infrastructure and infrastructure indicators,
geographical coverage, weighting schemes, and data sources. The second section will provide
the estimates of the index for the latest data for 236remote communities. The results will be firstexamined at the national level for the overall index, sub-indices, and components and subcomponents with a focus on differences between remote Indigenous and non-Indigenous
communities and differences among heritage groups. The results will then be analyzed at thelevel of the provinces and territories for the overall index and two sub-indices for economic andquality of life infrastructure. The third and final section will conclude and outline avenues toimprove the Index.

Methodology
The following section will outline the methodology used in the creation of theInfrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities. The basic structure for the IIRIC was
first proposed in the report Methodological Issues in the Construction of an Indigenous
Infrastructure Index, delivered to INAC by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards in early
January 2018. That report included experimental estimates for such an index for the threeterritories and Northern Quebec and Labrador based on information found in the 2014 NIEDB
report on Northern infrastructure. This report modifies those experimental estimates byextending the geographical coverage to all remote Northern regions of Canada, by distinguishing
Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, by disaggregating Indigenous communities by
heritage groups, and by adding housing infrastructure to the types of infrastructure included andwater quality as a sub-category under water facilities.
Key Characteristics
The key characteristics of the index are as follows.


The basic unit for the index is the community in remote areas. Communities aredefined as either Indigenous (50 per cent or more of the population self-identifies
as Indigenous) or non-Indigenous. Indigenous communities can be disaggregatedinto First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities. Community level data can thenbe aggregated into sub-provincial/territorial data, provincial/territorial data or
national data for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities andpopulations. Data can be aggregated on a community basis where each
community has equal weight or on a household or population weighted basis.

6The index can be used both for comparisons across jurisdictions and Indigenous
heritage groups. Going forward, a time series for each community can be built totrack progress. It may also be possible to develop a historical series.



The index is based on data for 13 indicators for seven types of infrastructure andcan be aggregated to infrastructure indicators and infrastructure types primarily
related to economic development and indicators primarily related to quality oflife.

Methodology of selection of communities
Definition of Indigenous communities
For the purpose of this study, an Indigenous community is defined as a community inwhich over 50% of the population has self-identified as Aboriginal in the 2016 Census. The term
Aboriginal encompasses Métis, First Nations and Inuk (Inuit) populations. The Indigenous
communities in the dataset have been further disaggregated into the heritage groups of Métis,First Nations, and Inuit (Inuk) by determining the heritage group with the largest population ineach Indigenous community. The focus of the Index is to quantify any difference ininfrastructure between Indigenous and non-Indigenous remote communities in Canada’s North.
The unweighted average for the overall index value of Census Metropolitan Areas in
Canada is 0.97 (Table 1). Therefore, it will be relatively straightforward to make comparison of
the overall infrastructure gap between remote Indigenous communities and southern cities,
assuming that southern cities have an index score of close to 1. But it is also important tocompare infrastructure between remote Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous
communities. For these reasons, the index is also calculated for non-Indigenous communities in
the remote regions covered by the index.

7

Table 1: Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Indexes and Total Index for
Census Metropolitan Areas (unweighted)
Halifax

Economic
Infrastructure Index
1.00

Quality of Life
Infrastructure Index
1.00

Total Index
1.00

Moncton

1.00

1.00

1.00

Saint John

0.96

1.00

0.98

Saguenay

1.00

0.96

0.98

Québec

1.00

1.00

1.00

Sherbrooke

0.83

0.96

0.90

Trois-Rivières

0.83

1.00

0.92

Montréal

1.00

1.00

1.00

Ottawa-Gatineau

1.00

1.00

1.00

Kingston

0.89

1.00

0.94

Peterborough

0.83

1.00

0.92

Oshawa

0.83

1.00

0.92

Toronto

1.00

0.96

0.98

Hamilton

1.00

1.00

1.00

St. Catharine’s-Niagara

0.89

1.00

0.94

Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo

1.00

1.00

1.00

Brantford

0.83

1.00

0.92

Guelph

0.83

1.00

0.92

London

1.00

1.00

1.00

Windsor

1.00

1.00

1.00

Barrie

0.83

1.00

0.92

Greater Sudbury

1.00

1.00

1.00

Thunder Bay

0.95

1.00

0.97

Winnipeg

1.00

0.96

0.98

Regina

1.00

0.96

0.98

Saskatoon

1.00

0.96

0.98

Calgary

1.00

1.00

1.00

Edmonton

1.00

1.00

1.00

Kelowna

1.00

0.96

0.98

Abbotsford-Mission

1.00

0.96

0.98

Vancouver

1.00

0.96

0.98

Victoria

1.00

0.92

0.96

Canada Average

0.95

0.99

0.97

8

Selection of communities and geographic coverage
Two separate methods were used for selecting the communities used in this report. First,
for the communities in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Quebec and Newfoundlandand Labrador, data was provided from a NIEDB report published in 2014 titled Study Addressing
the Infrastructure Needs of Northern Aboriginal Communities.2 This dataset included
information for 100 northern communities and 39 indicators, which represent 9 forms ofinfrastructure. The 100 northern communities were allocated between the regions of the Yukon(23), Northwest Territories (32), Nunavut (25), Quebec (23) and Newfoundland and Labrador(5). Since this dataset included all of the major communities with accessible data in Canada’s
northern most regions, the list of communities provided by the NIEDB was used for the creationof the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities. However, three of thecommunities from this original dataset had to be removed, as information was not available forall of the indicators included in the Index.
In order to include remote northern communities from other regions in Canada, a second
method of data selection was used to select communities in British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. The objective of this data selection was to identify
northern remote Indigenous communities in each province. As such, a definition of what is
considered “northern” was needed. The considerations made while understanding what isnorthern can be framed in the concept of Nordicity. Nordicity refers to our understanding of whatcomprises the differences between Canada’s regions marked by latitude. While these differences
may be either perceived or real, they all contribute to Canada’s imaginary of the North. 3
In the context of remoteness and infrastructure, the term “northern” can be consideredthrough variety of variables. The variables encompassed in this selection included physiographic,climactic and geographic factors. However, exact indicators were created to be regionallyspecific to each province in order to account for the vastness of Canada’s geography and theregionally indicative signifiers of “northern.” It should also be noted that in the case that a
regional centre was located just outside of the region defined as “northern,” this community was
still included to offer important comparisons with the nearby Indigenous communities.
In British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the border for the
Circumpolar Region was used to define the northern region. This is the area north ofapproximately 55 degrees latitude. This boundary was chosen because it is an international
standard of what constitutes “northern” while also being broad enough to include an adequate
sample of communities. In Saskatchewan, special attention was paid to communities identified as“Northern Village” or “Northern Settlement” in the Census 2016. As permafrost is linked to avariety of infrastructure challenges, the region considered northern in Manitoba was extendedslightly below the boundary of the Circumpolar Region to include areas outside of the region thatexperience permafrost.
Only a small portion of Ontario is included in the Circumpolar Region, thus producing an
inadequate sample of communities. Therefore, the boundary of the Canadian Shield was adopted
23

http://www.naedb-cndea.com/reports/northern-infrastructure-report.pdf
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/nordicity/9

for the selection of communities in Ontario, with an emphasis on communities above thepermafrost line.
Within these boundaries, communities were chosen based off their latitude (selecting thenorthernmost communities) and remoteness. The focus of the study is on remote communities
because the adequacy of infrastructure is much greater in non-remote communities, even in rural
areas of southern Canada. As can be seen in Table 1, the value of the index is near one for all
cities in southern Canada and averages 0.97 for the 32 identified Census Metropolitan Areas.
Certain communities were also excluded from the index as adequate publically accessible data
was not available.4

Table 2: Number of Communities by Jurisdiction and Heritage Group
Jurisdiction

NonTotal % Distribution Indigenous Indigenous

Alberta

41

British Columbia

29

First
Nations

Métis

Inuk

22

7

0

17.4

12

11

4.7

3

8

8

0

0

Manitoba

28

11.9

4

24

24

0

0

Newfoundlandand Labrador

5

2.1

0

5

0

0

5

Nunavut

24

10.2

0

24

0

0

24

NWT

30

12.7

3

27

20

1

6

Ontario

31

13.1

4

27

27

0

0

Quebec5

23

9.7

0

23

9

0

14

Saskatchewan

28

11.9

1

27

18

9

0

Yukon

15

6.4

9

6

6

0

0

total

236

100.0

36

200

134

17

49

4

The communities with incomplete data sets that were excluded from the overall index and compilationof this report are: Lower Post, BC (lack of information on sewage system); Buffalo Lake, AB (lack of
information on sewage system); Bushe River 207, AB (lack of information on sewage system); Child
Lake 164A, AB (lack of information on sewage and water distribution systems); South Indian Lake, MB(lack of information on sewage and water distribution systems); York Landing, MB (lack of information
on sewage and water distribution systems); Abitibi 70, ON (lack of information on sewage and water
distribution systems); and Minaki, ON (lack of information on water distribution system).
5
The province of Quebec has been further disaggregated in the dataset to include specific data on
communities belonging to the Inuk region Nunavik (14 communities) and communities belonging to theFirst Nations (Cree) region Eeyou-Istchee (9).
10

Table 3: Total Population by Jurisdiction and Heritage Group
Non% Distribution Indigenous Indigenous

First
Nations

Métis

Inuk

18,132

13,9864,146

034,836

1,865

1,865

0

0

13.6

31,29430,08230,082

0

0

2,558

1.0

n/a

2,558

0

0

2,558

Nunavut

27,214

6.0

10,545

16,6690034,800NWT

34,4377.6

n/a34,437

11,492435

5,495

Ontario

27,602

6.1

10,933

16,66916,66900Quebec6

30,3296.7

n/a30,32917,1410

13,188

Saskatchewan

27,723

6.3

1,402

26,321

19,043

7,278

0

Yukon

30,607

6.8

28,874

1,733

1,733

0

0

total

449,968

100.0

271,173

178,795

112,011

11,85956,041

Jurisdiction

Total

Alberta

171,42138.1

153,289

BritishColumbia

36,701

8.1

Manitoba

61,376

Newfoundlandand Labrador

Using these boundaries, 31 communities in Ontario, 28 in Manitoba, 28 in Saskatchewan,
41 in Alberta, and 11 in British Columbia were selected, making a total of 139 additional
communities for a grand total of 236 (Table 2).
Coverage over time
The purpose of the Index is to compare the state of infrastructure in remote Indigenous
communities with that of non-Indigenous communities, both in southern Canada and remote, andto use these community estimates of the Index as a benchmark to monitor progress in closing theIndigenous infrastructure gap. Thus, the indicators in the Index have been based on the mostcurrently available publically accessible data. At this stage of development of the Index, no timeseries has been proposed, but this is a possibility for future stages.

6

The province of Quebec has been further disaggregated in the dataset to include specific data on
communities belonging to the Inuk region Nunavik (14 communities) and communities belonging to theFirst Nations (Cree) region Eeyou-Istchee (9).
11

Table 4: Average Population by Jurisdiction and Heritage Group
Jurisdiction

Total

NonIndigenous Indigenous

First
Nations

Métis

Inuk

Alberta

4,181

12,774

625

636

592

n/a

British Columbia

3,336

11,612

233

233

n/a

n/a

Manitoba

2,192

7,824

1,253

1,253

n/a

n/a

Newfoundland and Labrador

512

n/a

512

n/a

n/a

n/a

Nunavut

907

n/a

695

n/a

n/a

1,450

NWT

1,435

n/a

1,275

575

435

916

Ontario

890

2,733

617

617

n/a

n/a

Quebec7

1,319

n/a

1,319

1,905

n/a

942

Saskatchewan

990

1,402

975

1,058

809

n/a

Yukon

2,040

3,208

289

289

n/a

n/a

total

1,907

7,533

894

836

698

1,144

Constraints on Infrastructure Related to Community Size and Remoteness
The Index includes many small communities, which do not have hospitals or highschools. One might argue that it is unfair to score these communities poorly because they lackthese types of infrastructure, as communities of similar size in southern Canada also do not havesuch facilities. There is an element of truth in this, but it ignores the fact that in southern Canada
residents of small communities can drive to hospitals and high schools. In many cases, this is notpossible in remote communities.
Some may argue that because of the remoteness, it is unrealistic to expect that remotecommunities would have comparable infrastructure facilities to southern Canada. For example,
the great distance between communities and the rough terrain make construction of year-roundroads very expensive, especially on a per capita basis given the small population. Again there isan element of truth in this. Nevertheless, it is still instructive to know the size of the gap for thesetypes of infrastructure, especially transportation infrastructure between southern Canada andmore remote areas of the country.
The provision of certain types of infrastructure is a basic right of all communities in
Canada and constraints related to community size and remoteness, while a reality, must be
overcome. For example, all Canadians have a right to adequate housing, safe drinking water, andaccess to the broadband.

7

The province of Quebec has been further disaggregated in the dataset to include specific data on
communities belonging to the Inuk region Nunavik (14 communities) and communities belonging to theFirst Nations (Cree) region Eeyou-Istchee (9).
12

Several of the communities without certain types of infrastructure neighbor communities
that do have this infrastructure available. Specifically, it is common for a reserve to be locatednear or border a non-Indigenous municipality with publically accessible infrastructure. However,
it is important to consider the value of having on-reserve services and infrastructure for those
who are unable or do not wish to travel to access services. Therefore, only services available
within the legal boundaries of each identified community are considered as on-site. However, if
services are located just off the legal reserve-land and are not a part of a bordering community(i.e. clearly designated for the reserve), these services are considered on-site.
Methodology of creation of the Index
Selection of indicators
The methodology of the selection of each indicator has been further developed in thereport Methodological Issues in the Construction of an Indigenous Infrastructure Index, preparedby the Centre for the Study of Living Standards (2018). On January 23, 2018, Indigenous
Services Canada released a backgrounder on reliable infrastructure.8 It noted the current
challenges facing First Nations for seven different types of infrastructure: housing, water andwastewater, health facilities, roads, education facilities, energy systems, and broadband. The
Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities thus includes all seven of these typesof infrastructure. These types of infrastructure have then been further aggregated to thoseprimarily related to economic development (broadband, transportation, and energy) and thoseprimarily related to quality of life (health facilities, education facilities, water facilities andhousing).
The index in this paper builds on work in the NIEDB report Study on Addressing theInfrastructure Needs of Northern Aboriginal Communities9that provided information on the stateof 11 infrastructure indicators for 100 communities in the Yukon (15), Northwest Territories(32), Nunavut (25), Nunavik/Eeyou-Istchee (23), and Nunatsiavut (5). All but one of theinfrastructure indicators from that study (solid waste management) are included in the
Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities. More specifically, these indicators
have been created with the aid of the NIEDB report data set. This data set included 39 indicators,
which were further aggregated to establish 9 types of infrastructure. From this set of indicators,
the 11 infrastructure indicators used in the NIEDB report were used in the creation of the Index.
However, many of the response categories from the original NIEDB report were further
aggregated in order to create a dataset cohesive with the information available for the
supplementary communities, while ensuring that an inherent rank-order exist between response
categories. The response categories for broadband/telecommunication backbone facilities werealso further developed in order to reflect adequacy of broadband access at a more granular level.
These indicators, and the different categories of the state or condition of infrastructure, are:

89Community access to telecommunications backbone facilities, categorized by insufficient
backbone infrastructure and insufficient last-mile infrastructure, insufficient backbone

https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-services-canada/news/2018/01/reliable_infrastructure.html
http://www.naedb-cndea.com/reports/northern-infrastructure-report.pdf
13

infrastructure or insufficient last-mile infrastructure, or sufficient backbone and last-mile
infrastructure;Road infrastructure, categorized by access to the Canadian National Roads Network or
local roads only;

Access to water transportation in coastal communities directly adjacent to an ocean, bay
or inlet,10 categorized by a deep water port with supportive infrastructure, a harbour orshallow water port with limited supporting infrastructure, or no port or harbour in thecommunity;

Air transportation infrastructure, categorized by no airport, scheduled flights to otherlocal airports or a regional air transit hub, scheduled flights to cities outside of the region
with or without local flights, or a large national or international airport;Primary sources of community energy, categorized by diesel generated local power orconnection to the North American power grid;Community access to health care facilities, categorized by hospital on site, Community
Health Centre (CHC) on-site, or no hospital and CHC on-site;Community access to secondary school facilities, categorized by high school available inthe community (K-11/12), either junior school (K-6) or up to middle school available inthe community (K-9), or no high school available in the community;Community access to college facilities, categorized by no facilities on-site, Community
Learning Centres (access to virtual campus and distance learning), or physical college
campus on-site;Drinking water distribution, categorized by trucked water distribution or piped water
distribution;

Wastewater/sewage treatment, categorized by sewage treatment via sewage treatment
plant, limited treatment via lagoon or wetland, or no sewage/wastewater treatment and
raw discharge into a water body.

The Index adds three additional indicators to the set of indicators found in the 2014
NIEBD report, two related to housing and one related to water quality. The first is the quality of
housing as represented by the proportion of the population living in housing facilities that require
10

A value of n/a (not applicable) was given to communities not adjacent to an ocean, bay or ocean inlet.
This value was then excluded from the calculation of the overall index (i.e. the transportation subcomponent of roads and airports each received a weighting of 1/2 and water transportation was not usedin the calculation of the Index).
14

a certain threshold of major repairs. The second is the proportion of housing defined as
overcrowded, as measured by having more than one person per room. Unlike the otherindicators, which are discrete, the data for the two housing indicators are continuous. They canbe made discrete by defining a threshold for the adequacy of housing quality and quantity,
related to the national average.
Quality of housing infrastructure categorized by the state of repair of the housing stock. A
community is defined as having an adequate quality of housing when the proportion of
population living in housing requiring major repairs is at or below 150 per cent of thenational average, as inadequate when the proportion is between 151 and 250 per cent of
the national average, as very inadequate when the proportion is between 251 and 350 per
cent and as extremely inadequate when the proportion exceeds 351 per cent of thenational average. The national average for housing needing major repairs in 2016 was 6.5
per cent of the population.

Quantity of housing infrastructure is categorized by the state of overcrowding. A
community is defined to have an adequate quantity of housing when the proportion ofhouseholds with more than one person per room is at or below 150 per cent of thenational average, as inadequate when the proportion is between 151 and 250 per cent of
the national average, as very inadequate between 251 and 350 per cent of the national
average, and as extremely inadequate when the proportion exceeds 351 per cent of thenational average. The national average for overcrowding in 2016 was 1.9 per cent.

The third additional indicator is water quality, which is categorized by no drinking water
advisory, a boil water advisory, or a do not consume warning.
Allocation of values
The infrastructure index for each community is estimated by allocating scores to thestatus or condition of the community infrastructure for the different infrastructure indicators andthen averaging these scores for the community. The top score (1) goes to the highest quality
infrastructure. Scores less than one are allocated to communities not having the highest quality
infrastructure based on the number of discrete categories. When there are two categories, scoresof 1 and 0 are allocated, for three categories 1, 0.5 and 0, and for four categories 1, 0.67, 0.33,
and 0. The enumeration of the discrete categories for the state or condition of the infrastructure
for each indicator for scoring purposing is provided below (Exhibit 1).

15

Exhibit 1: Index Values and Definitions
Infrastructure
Number of Possible
Indicator
Categories Scores

Definitions of Scores

Economic Infrastructure
Broadband

3

Transportation Road

Air

Water

Energy

2

4

3

2

0.00

inadequate backbone infrastructure (lacks 1Gbps
backbone access within 2 km of the community)
and inadequate last-mile infrastructure (nohouseholds with 5/1 Mbps internet speeds fromterrestrial infrastructure)

0.50

inadequate backbone infrastructure (lacks 1Gbps
backbone access within 2 km of the community)
or inadequate last-mile infrastructure (nohouseholds with 5/1 Mbps internet speeds fromterrestrial infrastructure)

1.00

adequate
backbone
infrastructure(1Gbpsbackbone access within 2 km of the community)
and adequate last-mile infrastructure (5/1 Mbps
internet speeds from terrestrial infrastructure)

-

-

0.00

local roads only

1.00

connected to the Canadian National Roads
Network

0.00

no airport

0.33

scheduled flights to other local airports and/or an
air transit hub

0.67

scheduled flights to cities outside the region and/or
an airport which is an air transit hub with flights tooutside the region as well as local flights

1.00

a large international airport

0.00

indicates no port or harbour in a coastal
community

0.50

indicates a harbour or shallow water port withlimited supporting infrastructure in a coastal
community

1.00

indicates a deep water port with supporting
infrastructure in a coastal community

0.00

diesel generated local power

1.00

power supplied through the grid16

Quality of Life Infrastructure
Health care

3

0.00

no hospital or community health centre (orequivalent service) on-site

0.50

community health centre or equivalent service onsite

1.00

hospital on-site

Education---

School30.00

no school in the community, students bussed to a
nearby location

0.50

junior school only available in the community (K6), or indicates up to middle school available inthe community (K-9)

1.00high school available in the community (K-11/12)

0.00

no community college campus in the community

0.50

satellite video conferencing availability to thecollege campus at another location

1.00

a community college campus in the community

-

-

-

3

0.00

no sewage/wastewater treatment
discharge into a water body

0.50

limited treatment via sewage lagoon or wetland

1.00

sewage treatment via sewage treatment plant

0.00

fresh water is trucked to buildings individually

1.00

water is supplied on a central system

0.00

do not consume

0.50

boil water advisory

1.00

no water advisory

-

-

-

4

0.00

extremely inadequate; 6.66% or more houses havemore than one person per room

0.33

very inadequate; 4.76-6.65% houses have morethan one person per room

0.67

inadequate; 2.86-4.75% houses have more than
one person per room

1.00

adequate; 2.85% or fewer houses have more than
one person per room

College

Water
Treatment

3

Distribution 2
Quality

Housing
Quantity

3

17

and

raw

Quality

4

0.00

extremely inadequate; 22.76% or more houses inneed of major repair

0.33

very inadequate; 16.26-22.75% houses in need ofmajor repair

0.67

inadequate; 9.76%-16.25% houses in need ofmajor repair

1.00

adequate;9.75% or fewer houses in need of major
repair

Weighting of indicators
The basic Index can be broken down into four levels. The highest three levels of
infrastructure in the Index have been termed: the Overall Index, the sub-indices (Economic
Infrastructure and Quality of Life Infrastructure), and the components (broadband,transportation, energy, health care, education, water, and housing). In order to develop
components indicative of the real state of community infrastructure, several of these components
were further disaggregated to create sub-components. Specifically, these are: transportation(comprised of roads, air transportation and water transportation), education (comprised of school
and college), and water (comprised of treatment, distribution, and quality). Within eachcomponent, each sub-component is equally weighted. Similarly, each component is equallyweighted within its respective sub-index. The sub-indices are then equally weighted. Thisweighting scheme was created to ensure that each of the two main categories of infrastructure(Economic Infrastructure and Quality of Life Infrastructure) would receive equal weighting.
Similarly, certain components include disaggregated sub-components to ensure the integrity ofequal weighting between forms of infrastructure within the index.
FormulaThe formula for the index constitutes an arithmetic mean, wherein the value of 1
represents the highest value that can be ascribed to a community. An arithmetic mean is
calculated by adding each of the values and dividing this sum by the total number of values, thus
giving the ‘average’ value of any case. Conversely, a geometric mean is defined as the nth root ofa set of n numbers, thus ensuring that there is not linear substitutability between factors, while
also equalizing the weighting. While a geometric mean was considered in order to account forprinciples of substitutability wherein no form of infrastructure can fully substitute another, thiscreated a formula too sensitive to values of zero, a common value in many of the components ofthis Index. An arithmetic mean was instead chosen to provide an accurate and balanced overview
of the amount of infrastructure present in each community and certain measures (i.e. aggregating
sub-components and components) were used to ensure equal weighting between types ofinfrastructure. The formula can be written as follows:18

Exhibit 2: Equation for Calculating the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities, Calculated at the Sub-Index Level

This equation can be further simplified by defining each type of infrastructure by its
components.
Exhibit 3: Equation for Calculating the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities, Calculated at the Component Level

A more complex version of this formula can be created by defining each of thecomponents by their subcomponents.
Exhibit 4: Equation for Calculating the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities

19

The following diagram includes a visual representation of the logic of this formula.
Figure 1: Diagrammatic Representation of the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities
Overall Index

Economic
Index

Broadband

Level 1:
Overall Index
Level 2:Sub-Indices
Level 3:Components

Transportation

Quality ofLife Index

Health Care

EnergyEducation

Water

Housing

Roads

SchoolSewageTreatment

Housing
Quanity

Water
Transportation

College

Water
Distribution

Housing
Quality

Air Transportation

Water Quality

Level 4:Sub-Components

Weighted averages
There are several considerations that must be made before determining the weighting
scheme for the creation of population averages. The first option considered is unweighted datathat gives an equal weight to each community. The second option is population weighted data,
which assigns a larger value to those communities with larger populations. In using unweighted
data, certain individuals are inherently more influential in the overall index, due to theirresidence in a smaller community. Thus, an average weighted by population may be more
appropriate to assign equal influence over the overall index to all members of the population.
However, these weights allow very large communities to heavily influence the average index
values. Often, larger communities have more infrastructure, meaning that weighting the data by
population can create higher average scores. This report includes both weighted and unweighted
data. However, unweighted data is used more frequently as it gives a more accurate depiction of
the situation in the average community.

20

Exhibit 5: Formulae Used to Calculate Index Averagesof community as a share of total
population
the unit of analysis

Data Sources
Data collection methods
The data used to create this index was gathered from a variety of federal, provincial andlocal sources. As the nature of this data was primarily qualitative, a quantifiable coding system
was created to rank the response categories within each indicator. This coding system was thenorganized hierarchically to establish a rank order and transformed into the values ranging from 01 that comprise the overall index (see Exhibit 1).
Data sources
All data was retrieved from publically accessible, open-source documents. As previously
stated, all of the values excluding those for water quality and housing for the Yukon, Northwest
Territories, Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec were sourced from the report
Study on Addressing the Infrastructure Needs of Northern Aboriginal Communities developed
for the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board by Centre for the North at theConference Board of Canada. However, this data was then verified using the methodology
created to research the supplementary regions, when possible. In all cases, the newest data wasused and in cases of discrepancy between the NAEDB dataset at the data identified by CSLS,
corroborating sources were consulted before making changes to the dataset. The data for housing
was retrieved using the methodology to be described below under “Housing Quantity andQuality.”
The following data sources and methodology were used to obtain the data required tocreate the Index.


Broadband: The Government of Canada online database for Areas eligible for funding toenhance broadband access11 was consulted for each community. The online databasemeasures eligibility for funding to increase backbone and last mile infrastructure. The
eligibility standards were used to categorize and code the standards for adequate and11

www.ic.gc.ca/app/sitt/ibw/hm.html?lang=eng
21

inadequate broadband infrastructure. Each individual community’s eligibility for funding
to increase each type of broadband infrastructure was consulted and coded.
Roads: To evaluate a community’s access to the Canadian National Roads Network,
Google Maps12 was used. Instances where the community has a road leading to anothercommunity, but does not connect to the Canadian National Roads Network were marked
as having local roads only. Similarly, Google Maps does generally does not include iceroads or seasonal roads. Therefore, only year-round road access was evaluated.



Water Transportation: Access to water transportation was evaluated in a two-stepprocess. First, Google Maps13 was used to evaluate the community’s proximity to an
ocean, bay or inlet. If the community was not determined to be coastal, it was given a
value of “n/a” and this value was not included in the calculation of the index. For
communities deemed to be coastal, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Listof Harbours and Harbour Authorities14 was consulted.



Air Transportation: No comprehensive federal source was found to indicate the flight
destinations of each airport. Therefore, a two-step process was developed. First, theCanada Flight Supplement15 as published by NAV Canada was consulted to identify
communities with on-site aerodromes. A search engine was then used to locate thewebsite of each aerodrome and the information on these websites was used to classify
each airport into one of the categories outlined in Exhibit 1. Only those aerodromes withregularly scheduled passenger flights were categorized because private flights andchartered flights are not reliable or accessible sources of transportation for much of the
population.

Energy: The document Status of Remote/Off-Grid Communities in Canada16 published by
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Natural Resources Canada
was consulted in the evaluation of energy in remote communities. For those communities
identified as off the grid, open source research of news sources was done to account for
any changes since the document’s 2011 publishing date.



Health Care: As health care is a provincially administered service, no comprehensive
federal sources were found. Research was conducted through the use of provincial
databases on health care services found online through each province’s respective healthauthority. As not every province uses the term “Community Health Centre” as was used

12

https://www.google.ca/maps
https://www.google.ca/maps
14
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sch-ppb/list-liste/harbour-list-liste-port-eng.html
15
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sch-ppb/list-liste/harbour-list-liste-port-eng.html
16
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/canmetenergy/files/pubs/2013-118_en.pdf
1322

in the NAEDB report, this definition was extended to include all health centres
administering services equivalent to or in a similar nature to a Community Health Centre.
 School and College: As education is a provincially administered service, no federal
database was found to indicate the presence of primary, secondary and post-secondary
schools in each community. Instead, the Ministry of Education responsible for eachprovince was consulted. Each province provided a list of primary and secondary schools,
which was then consulted in relation to each community. Similarly, provincial lists ofcommunity colleges were also available. To locate all campuses and satellite campuses ofeach college, the specific college websites were consulted.
 Water Treatment and Distribution: To evaluate water and wastewater systems, the“Regional Roll-Up Reports” included in the National Assessment of First Nations Water
and Wastewater Systems17 published by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada wereconsulted. For those communities not included in the document, municipal websites andother local, open-source data products were consulted.
 Water Quality18: To evaluate Water Quality, the regularly updated independent media
source WaterToday19 was consulted. Only those water advisories currently in place attime of consultation and affecting a substantial proportion of the community (i.e. does notinclude campgrounds, isolated fishing lodges, etc.) were included.
 Housing Quantity and Quality: As previously mentioned, the indicators for Housing
Quantity and Housing Quality were developed using national averages and data retrieved
from the Census 2016, published by Statistics Canada. Specifically, the Census Profile20
for each community was consulted and all proportions were calculated as a measure of all
respondents in the category of interest from the total respondents to the census questionof interest. To calculate Housing Quantity, the variable “Private households by number of
persons per room” was used to calculate the proportion of respondent households withmore than one person per room. Similarly, Housing Quality was measured using thevariable “Occupied private dwellings by dwelling condition” to calculate the proportionof respondent households responding that their home is in need of major repairs.

17

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1313426883501/1313426958782
Although the frequency of boil water advisories included in the index may be contrary to patterns andstatistics included in media reports, it must be remembered that the communities included in this index
are in a very specific geographic area. This region is seemingly less prone to drinking water advisories
and is not indicative of patterns of the frequency of drinking water advisories in all of Canada.
19
www.watertoday.ca
20
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E
18

23

Analysis of the Estimates of the Infrastructure Index for Indigenous
Communities
This section of the report will provide a detailed analysis of the estimates. The focus will
be on the gap between the infrastructure in remote Indigenous communities and that in southern
Canada, the benchmark, for the overall infrastructure index, the seven types of infrastructure, andthe 13 infrastructure indicators. Therefore, the difference between the 0.97 average index value
the Census Metropolitan Areas and the northern remote communities will be analyzed todetermine the infrastructure gap in Canada. Comparisons will also be made between territories
and provinces, between Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities in remoteareas, for the overall infrastructure index, the seven types of infrastructure, and the 13
infrastructure indicators.
This project has generated estimates of an Infrastructure index for 236 remotecommunities (200 Indigenous and 36 non-Indigenous) in 10 jurisdictions (7 provinces and 3
territories) based on 13 separate infrastructure indicators, a total of 3,068 data points. Tables 110 in Appendix 1 provide the estimates for all 13 indicators for the 10 jurisdictions as well as
aggregates for economic infrastructure and social infrastructure.21 It is beyond the scope of thisreport to provide a detailed discussion of the results for all indicators for all provinces andterritories. This section of the report will provide an analysis of the results at the national level
and highlight the differences between provinces and territories and between Indigenous and nonIndigenous communities as well as within heritage groups.
The results are very sensitive to the weighting scheme. Weighting for the calculation of
the Infrastructure Index for a jurisdiction can be done on a community basis (each community
receiving equal weight), which reduces the importance of large communities and increases theimportance of small communities or population basis (each person receives equal weight withina jurisdiction), which increases the importance of the large communities and reduces theimportance of small communities).

21

In addition, Appendix I provides data on each individual community. The Appendix is available at:
http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2019-04-data.xlsx.
24Aggregate Results
Results for Canada
Overall Index
Table 5: Overall Infrastructure Index for Remote Communities in Canada, 2018
Unweighted
Population Weighted
All Communities (100%)
0.51
0.76
Indigenous Communities (39.7%)
0.45
0.47
First Nations (25.2%)
0.48
0.51
Métis (2.6%)
0.64
0.67
Inuit (12.0%)
0.31
0.35
Non-Indigenous Communities (60.3%)
0.82
0.94
For the 236 communities that have been defined as remote for the purpose of this report
the average infrastructure index in 2018 (or the latest data available) was 0.51 on a scale from 0
to 1 on an unweighted basis and 0.76 on a population-weighted basis (Table 5). This all-remotecommunities infrastructure index value is not particularly useful as it masks significant
differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and is sensitive to thedefinition of remote communities, which is particularly important for the inclusion or exclusionof large remote non-Indigenous communities such as Fort McMurray and Grand Prairie. Thisvalue is also not representative of all northern remote communities as this data is unweighted andthere are more Indigenous communities in the dataset than non-Indigenous communities, thus
giving greater influence over the index value to Indigenous communities.
Consequently, the report will largely focus on the index values for Indigenous
communities, which represent 200 of the 236 (84.7 per cent) communities defined as remote(although only 39.7 per cent of the population defined as remote22), with comparisons whereappropriate to non-Indigenous communities. As there are not large population differences
between remote Indigenous communities (unlike remote non-Indigenous communities), thedifferences between population weighted and unweighted index values are small. To reduce thequantity of numbers in the report, the discussion will focus on the unweighted average where
communities are not weighted by their population.
As noted, there were significant differences in the infrastructure index between
Indigenous remote communities and non-Indigenous remote communities. On an unweighted
basis the index value for Indigenous communities was 0.37 points lower than for non-Indigenous
communities (0.45 versus 0.82). The gap was even greater on a population-weighted basis, 0.47
points (0.47 versus 0.94).

22

This calculation was made using the populations of the 236 communities identified in this report. The
proportion of the remote population defined as Indigenous has been calculated as the share of the
population living in communities defined as Indigenous from the total population of all communities in
the report.
25

The average size of a remote Indigenous community in our data set at only 899 is muchless than in a remote non-Indigenous community, at 7,903. This size difference explains some ofthe difference in index values. Certain types of infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals,
require a minimum community size to be cost effective. Consequently, such infrastructure is notfound in small communities, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, remote or non-remote.
Indeed, the unweighted score of the 11 remote non-Indigenous remote communities with apopulation under 1,000 (seven of which are in Yukon) was 0.68, closer to the average for
Indigenous communities of the same size (0.44). Although the gap between Indigenous and nonIndigenous of this size and remoteness is smaller than the overall infrastructure gap, it stillclearly exists in all provinces and territories included in this study (Table 6). Much of thisdifference was due to the higher quality of housing in small remote non-Indigenous communities
compared to that in Indigenous communities.

Table 6: Infrastructure Index for Remote Communities (population under 1000) by
Province and Territory (unweighted)
Indigenous Non-Indigenous Total
British Columbia
0.51
n/a
0.51
Alberta
0.55
0.81
0.58
Saskatchewan
0.54
n/a
0.54
Manitoba
0.46
n/a
0.46
Ontario
0.40
0.68
0.41
Quebec
0.33
n/a
0.33
Newfoundland and Labrador
0.33
n/a
0.33
Yukon
0.56
0.64
0.60
Northwest Territories
0.40
0.57
0.41
Nunavut
0.29
n/a
0.29
Canada
0.44
0.68
0.46
The value of the infrastructure index varies by heritage groups. The 17 Métis
communities in the dataset of remote communities had an unweighted index value of 0.64, thehighest, followed by the 134 First Nations communities at 0.48 and then the 49 Inuit
communities at 0.31.
Sub-Indexes for Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure
Table 7: Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Indexes for Indigenous and
Non-Indigenous Remote Communities (unweighted by population)
Economic Infrastructure
Quality of Life Infrastructure
Indigenous Communities
0.48
0.42
First Nations
0.56
0.39
Métis
0.78
0.50
Inuit
0.14
0.48
Non-Indigenous Communities
0.81
0.83

26

As was discussed in the methodology section, the 13 indicators in the Infrastructure Index
are first aggregated into economic and quality of life infrastructure before the final aggregation
into the overall index. This section looks at the index values for these two types of infrastructure.
The economic infrastructure sub-index consists of three components or types ofinfrastructure: broadband, energy, and transportation, with the latter divided into three subcomponents: roads, water, and airports. The quality of life infrastructure sub-index consists ofour components: health care, education, water, and housing.
The unweighted value for the economic infrastructure sub-index for Indigenous
communities is 0.48. Two observations are germane here. First, this value is well below that for
non-Indigenous communities at 0.81. Second, this index value is not far above the value for thequality of life infrastructure at 0.42.
Similarly, the index value for the non-Indigenous quality of life infrastructure is very
close to that for economic infrastructure (0.81 versus 0.83). Thus, there is a very large gap
between the index value for quality of life infrastructure between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
communities: 0.42 versus 0.83. However, the patterns demonstrated at the aggregate level of
Indigenous and non-Indigenous are misleading as to the relationship between economic
infrastructure and quality of life infrastructure at the level of heritage groups.
Among the heritage groups there are significant differences in values for the economic
infrastructure sub-index, much less for quality of life infrastructure. The index value for
economic infrastructure for Métis was 0.78, only 0.03 index point below the remote nonIndigenous communities. Conversely, the economic index value for Inuit was 0.14. For qualityof life infrastructure, the Métis had the highest index value (0.50), followed by the Inuit with thenext highest index value (0.48) and the First Nations communities had the lowest index score(0.39). It should be noted that all of these scores are well below that of remote non-Indigenous
communities (0.83). It should also be noted that the First Nations and Métis communities havehigher average index scores for economic infrastructure than quality of life infrastructure,
whereas the Inuit score 0.34 points higher for quality of life infrastructure than they do for
economic infrastructure. The reasons for this discrepancy will be explored later in this paper. The
key takeaway is that remote First Nations communities experience the greatest quality of life
infrastructure deficit while the Inuit communities, all of which are remote, experience thegreatest economic infrastructure deficit.
Components of the Economic Infrastructure Sub-Index
The economic infrastructure sub-index consists of three components: broadband
transportation and energy (Table 8). The transportation component is in turn made up of subcomponents for road access, water access and air access.
The energy component of the economic infrastructure sub-index is the highest scoring on
average for remote northern Indigenous communities. The energy component of economic
infrastructure is defined as access to the North America power grid. Without this access
communities are forced to use generators to produce electricity. The value for this index for27

remote Indigenous communities is 0.56, well below that for remote non-Indigenous communities(0.86). However there are extreme differences in the index by heritage groups, from 1.00 for
Métis communities to 0.00 for Inuit communities. The lack of access to the North American
power grid in Nunavut reflects its remote location. The location of the vast majority of Métis
communities (16 out of 17) in the provinces, as opposed to the more remote territories, explains
the high value of the energy index for this group.
Access to adequate broadband also contributed to the infrastructure deficit across all
Indigenous communities. The Métis exhibit the smallest deficit, scoring 0.85, just 0.07 points
below non-Indigenous remote communities. The First Nations communities demonstrate asizeable deficit, scoring 0.59. The lowest scoring heritage group for this indicator is by far the
Inuit at 0.11. It is important to note the difference in scores between the three Indigenous groups
analyzed. Not only do Inuit communities face a large deficit when compared with remote nonIndigenous communities (0.92), but there is also a clear deficit when comparing the gap between
Inuit access to and adequacy of broadband and that of Métis communities (0.85).
The transportation component of the economic infrastructure for remote indigenous
communities exhibits the greatest deficit at 0.39 among the three economic infrastructurecomponents, far lower than the index value for remote non-Indigenous communities (0.65).
Within heritage groups, Métis communities had the best transportation infrastructure at 0.50,
above Inuit communities, the lowest, at 0.32. Since the transportation component includes three
sub-components, analysis of these sub-components is needed to understand the differences at thecomponent level (Table 9). While these disparities are very large, non-Indigenous communities
face many of the same challenges with an index score of 0.65, which is notably below thenational benchmark.
The first sub-component of the transportation component is all-season access of thecommunity to the National Road Network. The index value for remote Indigenous communities
is 0.52, around one-half the value for remote non-Indigenous communities (0.97). There are
extremes in road access among the heritage groups, from 1.00 for Métis communities (higher,
even, than remote non-Indigenous communities) to 0.04 for Inuit communities, given theabsence of links to the national road system in Nunavut.
The second sub-component of the transportation component is access to watertransportation in coastal communities. Communities not on the coast are excluded from thiscalculation. Since remote Métis communities and non-Indigenous communities are not on the
coast, there are no index values for these groups. The value for First Nations is 0.40 and for Inuit
0.51.
The third sub-component of the transportation component is airports, with communities
categorized by no airport, airport with local flights, airport with flights outside the region, andairport with national and international flights. The value for Indigenous communities was 0.22,
below that of remote non-Indigenous communities (0.33). Much of this difference reflects themuch larger size of the latter category of communities. Within Indigenous communities, the Inuit
have by far the best access to air services (0.42), reflecting the lack of roads and hence necessity

28

for air transport. Métis communities have the worst air access (0.00), reflecting both their small
size and road access.
Table 8: Components of the Economic Infrastructure Sub-Index for Indigenous and NonIndigenous Remote Communities (unweighted by population)
Broadband Transportation
EnergyIndigenous Communities
0.49
0.39
0.56
First Nations
0.59
0.40
0.70
Métis
0.85
0.50
1.00
Inuit
0.11
0.32
0.00
Non-Indigenous Communities
0.92
0.65
0.86

Table 9: Sub-Components for the Transportation Component of the Economic
Infrastructure Sub-Index for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Remote Communities(unweighted by population)
Roads
Water
Airports
Indigenous Communities
0.52
0.50
0.22
First Nations
0.63
0.40
0.17
Métis
1.00
n/a
0.00
Inuit
0.04
0.51
0.42
Non-Indigenous Communities
0.97
n/a
0.33
Components of the Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Index
The quality of life infrastructure sub-index consists of four components: health care,education, water, and housing (Table 10). The latter three of these components are in turn madeup of sub-components or indicators.
In terms of the four components the quality of life infrastructure gap or deficit between
remote Indigenous communities and Canadian CMAs (index value around 1.0) the gap is theleast for water (an index value of 0.71), followed by education (0.44), health care (0.39),and
housing (0.16). This pattern is similar for the three heritage groups.
Heath care infrastructure
Health care infrastructure is captured by the availability in a community of a hospital or
Community Health Centre. The value of this indicator for remote Indigenous communities at
0.39 is less than one half that of remote non-Indigenous communities (0.83), largely reflecting
the much greater average community size for the latter. Inuit communities have a higher score
for health care facilities at 0.54 than either First Nations (0.34) or Métis (0.35). The isolation ofmany Inuit settlements may make Community Health Centres more essential than in Métis andFirst Nations communities with road access to larger centres with hospitals.

29

Table 10: Components of the Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Index for Indigenous and
Non-Indigenous Remote Communities (unweighted by population)
Heath Care
Education
Water
Housing
Indigenous Communities
0.39
0.44
0.71
0.16
First Nations
0.34
0.35
0.75
0.15
Métis
0.35
0.47
0.82
0.33
Inuit
0.54
0.67
0.55
0.15
Non-Indigenous Communities
0.83
0.76
0.90
0.81

Table 11: Sub-Components for the Education Component of the Quality of Life
Infrastructure Sub-Index for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Remote Communities(unweighted by population)
SchoolCollege
Indigenous Communities
0.67
0.20
First Nations
0.55
0.14
Métis
0.68
0.26
Inuit
0.99
0.35
Non-Indigenous Communities
0.93
0.60
Education infrastructure
Education infrastructure is captured by the availability of schools (primary schools orhigh schools) and community colleges (college facilities on site or access to virtual colleges anddistance learning). In terms of schools, the average score for remote Indigenous communities is0.67 (Table 11), behind that for remote non-Indigenous communities (0.93). Inuit communities
have the highest score at 0.99, implying 48 of the 49 Inuit communities have high schools. Métis
communities scored 0.68, followed by First Nations communities at 0.55.
Not surprisingly, the presence of or access to communities colleges is limited in remotecommunities, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous. The score for Indigenous communities is0.20; however, non-Indigenous communities still fare better with a score of 0.60. Among
Indigenous communities, Inuit have the highest score for community college access at 0.35,
followed by Métis (0.26) and First Nations (0.14).
Water Infrastructure
Water infrastructure is captured by water treatment facilities (full, limited, or notreatment), water distribution (piped or trucked), and water quality (do not consume warning,boil water advisory, or no advisory). The largest deficit in water infrastructure between
Indigenous communities and benchmark communities in southern Canada, which all score
around 1, is in water distribution, with the former at 0.57, followed by water treatment (0.61) andwater quality (0.94) (Table 12). Water treatment is a problem for some remote Non-Indigenous
communities (0.76). Among heritage groups, the Métis have the best water treatment facilities(0.74), followed by First Nations (0.65) and Inuit (0.47).

30

Water distribution is not much of a problem for remote non-Indigenous communities,
with a score of 0.94. Among heritage groups, it is much more an issue for Inuit (0.21) than forFirst Nations (0.68) and Métis (0.76). It should also be noted that the presence of permafrost
largely determines the method of water distribution used in northern communities where it isoften impractical to install pipes that either cannot be easily installed in the frozen ground or will
be highly susceptible to bursts caused by freezing water.
Water quality is not at all a problem for remote non-Indigenous communities, with ascore of 1.00. In First Nations and Métis communities, the score of 0.97 suggests that few
communities in this region have problem with water quality. The water quality situation isslightly less positive in Inuit communities, with a score of 0.92.
Housing Infrastructure
Housing infrastructure has both a housing quality and housing quantity dimension.
Housing quality is captured by the state of repair of the housing stock. Housing quantity is
captured by the state of overcrowding, with overcrowding defined as more than one person per
room. Remote Indigenous communities have very large housing infrastructure gaps. The score
for housing quality is 0.23. The situation is even worse for housing quantity at 0.09. All
communities that are within 150 per cent of the national average score 1.0. The picture is muchless bleak in remote non-Indigenous communities for housing quality at 0.92 and somewhat lessbleak for housing quantity at 0.69.
In terms of the extent of need for major repair for housing infrastructure, Inuit
communities fare worst at 0.15, followed by First Nations (0.24) and Métis (0.45). In terms ofovercrowding, it is First Nations communities that do the worst at 0.05, followed by Inuit (0.15)
and Métis (0.22).
Table 12: Sub-Components for the Water Component of the Quality of Life Infrastructure
Sub-Index for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Remote Communities (unweighted bypopulation)
Treatment
Distribution
Quality
Indigenous Communities
0.61
0.57
0.94
First Nations
0.65
0.68
0.92
Métis
0.74
0.76
0.97
Inuit
0.47
0.21
0.98
Non-Indigenous Communities
0.76
0.94
1.00

31

Table 13: Sub-Components for the Housing Component of the Quality of Life
Infrastructure Sub-Index for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Remote Communities(unweighted by population)
In Need of Repair
Crowding
Indigenous Communities
0.23
0.09
First Nations
0.24
0.05
Métis
0.45
0.22
Inuit
0.15
0.15
Non-Indigenous Communities
0.92
0.69

Results for the Provinces and Territories
Overall Index
Table 14 presents the scores for the infrastructure index for remote Indigenous and nonIndigenous communities by province and territory. The jurisdiction that has the highest index
value for Indigenous communities, meaning the smallest infrastructure deficit between
Indigenous communities and cities in southern Canada, was Saskatchewan at 0.58. Second was
Yukon (0.56), followed by Alberta (0.54), British Columbia (0.51), and Manitoba (0.46).The
jurisdiction with the lowest score was Nunavut (0.30), followed by Newfoundland and Labrador(0.32),Quebec (0.36), and Ontario (0.41).
It is telling to highlight the infrastructure gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
communities in remote areas, although some of this gap reflects the larger size of nonIndigenous communities. The largest gap in the infrastructure index is in British Columbia (0.44
points). By far the smallest gap was in Yukon, at only 0.15 points, but it should be noted that the
non-Indigenous communities in the Yukon fared worse than their counterparts in otherjurisdictions with a score of 0.71. It should also be noted that there were no non-Indigenous
communities included in the sample from Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut.
Table 14: Infrastructure Index for Remote Communities by Province and Territory(unweighted)
Indigenous
Non-indigenous
Gap
British Columbia
0.51
0.95
0.44
Alberta
0.54
0.89
0.35
Saskatchewan
0.58
0.83
0.25
Manitoba
0.46
0.87
0.41
Ontario
0.41
0.74
0.33
Quebec0.36
n/an/a
Newfoundland and Labrador
0.32
n/a
n/a
Yukon
0.56
0.71
0.15
Northwest Territories
0.45
0.78
0.33
Nunavut
0.30
n/a
n/a
Canada
0.45
0.82
0.37

32

Economic versus Quality of Life Infrastructure
Table 15 reports on the values for the economic and quality of life infrastructure subindexes for remote Indigenous communities by province and territory. At the national level the
economic infrastructure score at 0.48 is above (0.06 points) the score for quality of life
infrastructure (0.42). The results for the jurisdictions vary greatly from the national average, bothin terms of the absolute scores and in terms of which sub-index has the highest score. Indeed,
unlike at the national level where the score for economic infrastructure exceeds that for qualityof life infrastructure, in five of the 10 jurisdictions, quality of life sub-index exceeds the
economic infrastructure sub-index, sometimes by a substantial amount.
The highest scores for economic infrastructure are in the four most western jurisdictions.
Saskatchewan is number one at 0.78, followed closely by Alberta at 0.75. The Yukon followed at
0.62 and British Columbia scored similarly at 0.58.The lowest score is in Nunavut at 0.11,
followed by Newfoundland and Labrador (0.16), and Quebec (0.31).
In terms of quality of life infrastructure, the highest score was in Yukon at 0.49. It should
be noted that the difference between this score and the national average was much less than the
difference between the highest score for a jurisdiction in economic infrastructure and the national
average (0.07 point versus 0.30 points). The three provinces that had the lowest scores were:
Alberta at 0.33, followed by Saskatchewan (0.37) and Quebec (0.42).
Given the high scores for economic infrastructure and the much lower scores for qualityof life infrastructure in western Canada, the gap between the two sub-indexes is very high in thispart of the country. Alberta has the largest gap between economic and quality of life
infrastructure at 0.42, followed by Saskatchewan at 0.41. While Alberta and Saskatchewan both
saw higher scores for economic infrastructure, Nunavut’s large gap was in the inverse direction
with quality of life scoring higher than the economic indicators. Many jurisdictions demonstrated
only marginal gaps; notably Manitoba (0.06), Ontario (-0.07), and Northwest Territories (-0.04)
all had very small gaps between the two sub-indices.
Table 15: Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Indexes for Remote Indigenous
Communities by Province and Territory (unweighted)
Economic (1) Quality of Life (2)Gap ((1)-(2)British Columbia
0.58
0.44
0.14
Alberta
0.75
0.33
0.42
Saskatchewan
0.78
0.37
0.41
Manitoba
0.49
0.43
0.06
Ontario
0.38
0.45
-0.07
Quebec
0.31
0.42
-0.11
Newfoundland and Labrador
0.16
0.48
-0.32
Yukon
0.62
0.49
0.13
Northwest Territories
0.43
0.47
-0.04
Nunavut
0.11
0.48
-0.37
Canada
0.48
0.42
0.06

33

Conclusion and Future Work
This report represents a first attempt to construct an infrastructure index for remotecommunities in Canada. It is a work in progress. The report has developed a composite
infrastructure index for 236 remote communities. Estimates or scores out of 1.0 are provided forthe overall infrastructure index, the economic and quality of life infrastructure sub-indexes, theseven types or components of infrastructure and 13 infrastructure indicators by province andterritory, with disaggregation by Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, and by heritagegroup. These results, over 3,000 community-indicator data points, are contained in a large Excel
file accompanying this report.
This concluding section highlights some of the key findings of the report and outlines anumber of long-term extensions to the infrastructure index that could be made.

Key Findings
The report has identified significant infrastructure gaps between remote Indigenous
communities and non-Indigenous communities. Major cities in Canada have an overall
infrastructure index value of around one, about double the value or score for Indigenous
communities (0.45). Remote non-Indigenous communities also have a much higher level ofinfrastructure (0.82) than remote Indigenous communities do. A detailed examination of thereasons for the differences in infrastructure deficiencies in remote communities is beyond thescope of this report, as is a discussion of policies to reduce the infrastructure gap between remote
Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities.
Some of the most salient findings of the report are highlighted below.
Among the three heritage groups, the infrastructure gap is greatest for Inuit (0.31),
followed by First Nations (0.48) and Métis (0.64).



Métis have the best economic infrastructure (0.78), followed by First Nations (0.56), andInuit (0.14).

For quality of life infrastructure, Métis fare best (0.50), and First Nations the worst(0.39), with Inuit in middle position (0.48).

Because of lack of access to both the national electricity grid, adequate broadband andthe national road system, Inuit communities are particularly disadvantaged in the subindex for economic infrastructure. It must also be noted that Inuit communities in
Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and the Northwest Territories all lacked
these forms of infrastructure.



Among the seven types of infrastructure included in the infrastructure index, by far thelargest gap is for housing (index score of 0.16). This is true for First Nations (0.15) and34

Métis (0.33), but Inuit fare worse in both broadband (0.11) and energy (0.00) than they
do in housing (0.15).
The infrastructure gap for remote Indigenous communities is, in general, smaller west of
the Ontario border. Saskatchewan has the lowest gap (index value of 0.58). Nunavut has
the largest gap (index value of 0.30)

There is also great variance in the gap between economic infrastructure and quality of life
infrastructure, with five of 10 jurisdictions scoring higher in economic infrastructure thanquality of life infrastructure.



The jurisdiction with the poorest quality of life infrastructure is Alberta and thejurisdiction with the poorest economic infrastructure is Nunavut.

Future Work
This report was produced in a short time frame. Future versions of the report would
benefit from peer review by infrastructure experts in a number of areas. For example, can theselection of the seven types of infrastructure and the 13 infrastructure indicators be improved
upon? Can scoring scheme for particular indicators incorporate additional information? For
example, can the road access indicators be improved by adding a category for seasonal roadaccess? Should the indicator for health better encompass services offered and quality of healthcare? Are there data sources not used in the reports that would improve the quality of theestimates?
Another concern is whether the coverage of remote communities is comprehensive
enough. We note that there are no non-Indigenous communities in Quebec and Newfoundlandand Labrador included in the report’s data set. In addition, remote communities on the BC coast
are excluded.
Infrastructure deficits are not just a problem for Indigenous communities in remote partsof the country, but for many other Indigenous communities. To assess the extent of thisinfrastructure gap for all Indigenous Canadians, it would be useful to also develop estimates of
the index for non-remote Indigenous communities.
The index captures the current infrastructure picture for remote Indigenous communities
in Canada. It would be useful to update the index on a regular basis (every year or two years) tomeasure progress in reducing the Indigenous infrastructure gap. In addition it would be useful todevelop historical estimates of the index to see what progress has been made over time.
This report is largely descriptive in nature. More analytical work is needed to better
understand these infrastructure gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities (bothremote and non-remote). In particular the role of community size in explaining infrastructure35

gaps needs further examination. Calculation of scores for all infrastructure variables bycommunity size would be a useful way to start such analysis.

36