With all the attention paid to the Idle No More movement and the off-again on-again talks between some native chiefs and the Prime Minister, one basic fact about aboriginal life in Canada has been forgotten: most aboriginals do not live on reserve and seem to be better for it.
That's an important fact that should be part of any debate about how to improve the living standards of aboriginal Canadians.
Their general plight is already well-known: when compared to other Canadians, Statistics Canada data shows that proportionately fewer aboriginal Canadians finish high school and of those that do, a smaller proportion will obtain post-secondary education. Also, aboriginals are less likely to be in the labour force, they will face higher unemployment rates, and their median earnings are less. They are thus more dependent on government transfers when compared with non-aboriginal Canadians.
However, what is less often articulated in much detail is how those aboriginals off-reserve fare better than those Aboriginals on-reserve.
To see what I mean, some background is necessary to put that claim in context.
According to Statistics Canada, for census purposes, "aboriginal identity" refers to people who self-identify as belonging to one or more of the following aboriginal groups: North American Indian, Métis or Inuit. According to the 2006 census (the 2011 results are not yet available) 1,172,790 Canadians placed themselves in one of those three groups or some combination thereof.
Here's the thing: of those almost 1.2 million aboriginals, just 308,490 live on reserve, or barely more than 26 per cent. Thus, fully 74 per cent of Canadians who self-identify as aboriginals do not live on reserve.
Yes, populations on reserves have increased, partly because the population of self-identified "North American Indians" is growing. But as the statistics show, a greater proportion of that category of Canadians lived off-reserve in 2006 when compared to 2001. In other words, the off-reserve population is growing faster than the population on reserve.
Looking more closely, the aboriginals most likely to live on reserve are "North American Indians" or First Nations in more common parlance. Of that group, 300,755 out of 698,025 live on-reserve, or 43 per cent (again, as of the 2006 census).
In other words, 57 per cent of Indians/First Nations people do not live on reserve. And that's up from 55 per cent who lived off-reserve, as of the 2001 census.
A caveat: Census data differs from that recorded by the department of Aboriginal Affairs for reasons not germane here. But Aboriginal Affairs data shows a similar pattern in its 1983 to 2010 tracking: a growth in the number of people on reserves but a decline in the proportion of registered Indians on reserve.
So why does all this matter? Because additional data from Statistics Canada reveals that those most likely to live on-reserves (the "North American Indian" category), have lower median incomes compared to other aboriginals.
For example, according to the 2006 census, for all aboriginals grouped together (whether on or off-reserve), the median earnings figure for someone who worked full-time was $36,944.
But what is revealing is how that aboriginal category breaks down. Inuit had the highest median income at $44,440 with Metis next at $39,784. Indian/First Nations people (combining on-reserve and off-reserve) had a median income of just $34,209.
Remember, all of the foregoing statistics are for those who worked full-time all year.
Now break the "Indian" category down even further between those on-reserve and those off-reserve.
On-reserve Indians had a median income of $29,014. In contrast, off-reserve Indians had a median income of $37,477. In other words, First Nations people/Indians who live off-reserve have a median income that is almost $8,500 higher than their counterparts on-reserve.
It's no secret as to why many reserves and the inhabitants thereon suffer: many are far from large urban centres. Most reserves are also not yet designed to foment any sort of property rights for inhabitants.
The combination of remoteness and anti-wealth creating collective structures (to say nothing of the politicization of reserve spending) means many reserves thus lack the economic, educational and career opportunities that accompany living near a major centre.
As native and non-native politicians alike ponder what to do about aboriginal policy, they should keep in mind this simple fact: For most of Canada's aboriginal population, life is better away from the reserve. That might explain why a majority of aboriginal Canadians, including a majority of North American Indians, choose not to live on reserves.
After all of that, we cannot but understand that it is time to move on - and solve the bigger problems expediently and/or be stuck here for another 200 years. My question on whether or not FN received monies at the time of their majority remained unanswered. My understanding is that in Alberta they receive 100,000 each - did not think it was the result of "royalities" and/or determined by band membership. However, I could be wrong on that and Alberta is only one province.
Now it is time to wonder just what PM could address these longstanding and difficult issues without confrontation and disdain by someone. Without all the stats - it is my understanding that Harper is attempting to get rid of the Indian Act and move forward giving them more authority over themselves than in the past - while the claims will likely continue on until the end of time.
While your information is informative it is also deflating - who will ever be able to get this job done?
provide references or do some research as I am sure that if band members of 45 reserves in Alberta were receiving $100.000 EACH the rest of us in the other 591 communities would like to know when & why the CROWN honoured treaties 6,7 &8 & chooses to ignore agreements from 1664..
These problems exist despite the 1986 Indian Affairs’ treaty implementation internal report that said Canada owed Indigenous people $11.5-trillion for land, resource, and treaty obligations. Across the continent vast tracts like the Great Lakes watershed have underlying title retained by Indigenous people that are treaty-based.
No doubt the Indian debt in the US has similar staggering proportions. Indigenous people sought remedies to this long list of injustices that goes far beyond residential school‘s direct and collateral victims. Often, as was the case with the Iroquois appeal for justice to The Hague in the 1920s, the US and Canada collaborated in the overthrow of the Indigenous treaty signatories from the Great Law, Sundance, and Potlatch legal systems (Six Nations 1924). The attempt to put closure on the Indian residential school tragedy is only the tip of an underwater volcano of grievances most Indians know about.
http://indigenouspolicy.org/Articles/VolXXNo3/TheApologiaCanadianalessonsforanIndianBoadi/tabid/79/Default.aspx
&
http://iog.ca/en/search/node/Aboriginal
Your response to me is now approximately 400 years past. While you can tell us that we are indebted to FN in the trillions (11.4 to be exact) over unsolved claims and treaties etc. My real question is that you are claiming this at today's costs and today's standards after vast increases in value over time of both land, resources and investment by "others" into the economy.
What would you say then, since you are consistently quoting arrangements made with the crown - if Canada went back to the time of the original treaty and paid that in full?
This appears to be what would be "fair" at this point in time. No Canadian today can change what your history was with Great Britain or any arrangments made while they had dominion over Canada.
It is clear that your argument is with Great Britian and not Canada - and they are the ones who made these arrangements with FN - they are also the ones who should pay.
For the past months we’ve been fed a steady diet of dismal reports from Attawapiskat in the James Bay area. Combined with Theresa Spence’s fish broth diet and the Idle No More protests, this has been a particularly bad bad news period for Canada/First Nations relations.
Thank goodness then for this report by Jonathan Kay of the National Post, who spent several days in the James Bay area visiting reserves like Fort Albany, Kashechewan and Moosonee. According to Kay Attawapiskat is definitely NOT the whole story. Because of its unfortunate history, very remote location, and poor leadership the people of that reserve suffer more than many others in that area.
http://www.rickhendershot.com/?p=1126
Referenced:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/19/for-modern-reserves-success-is-in-balancing-tradition-and-capitalism/
Over the past two years, there has been a surge in mining claims staked throughout Ontario. In particular, there has been an escalation in the flurry of mining activity in the Far North in an area known as the Ring of Fire some 240 kilometres west of James Bay and northeast of Thunder Bay, shattering once pristine habitat and home to species found in few other places in the world.
to see on map
http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/campaigns/PDFs/Ring%20of%20Fire.pdf
more info: http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/campaigns/ring_of_fire.php
it covers 1 million hectares & is comprised of 4600 mining claims
Mind you TREATY promises that weren't kept ...
http://www.northernontariobusiness.com/Industry-News/mining/Attawapiskat-unhappy-over-Victor-Mine-issues604.aspx
&
http://netnewsledger.com/?p=7878
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/aiarch/arp/aev/pubs/ev/orhs/orhs-eng.asp
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201106_04_e_35372.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/chelsea-vowel/first-nations-taxation-ex_b_1127893.html
http://www.slaw.ca/2011/12/02/dunkin%E2%80%99-the-victim-a-note-on-legal-political-background-of-the-current-attawapiskat-campaign
http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2011/12/mnn-attawapiskat-kashachewan-and.html
( this is the most " big picture " explanation of the issue)
In both Canada and the United States there is an official government designation that qualifies a person as an Indian. In order to live on a reservation or be considered a member of a band one has to have that official designation. If there were no people with that designation there would be no need for reservations on either side of the border. So, why not just gradually eliminate the designations?
If you think that sounds highly unlikely, consider this. King quotes census figures from both America and Canada which show as of 2006 only about 40% of the Native population in North America are considered legally Indian. He then goes on to outline how both governments are now proposing new legislation, which if enacted, would work towards reducing that number even further and eventually to zero. The long-term goal being the complete elimination of anybody who is a member of a band that signed a treaty giving them control over land.
Further, with lower profits as a consequence of the state-owned enterprises being less efficient, and reduced capital investment, the flow of revenues to governments in the form of corporate taxes and royalties would be reduced. Moreover, the flow of dividends to shareholders of companies in the oil and gas producing sector could be expected to be lower with fewer privately owned enterprises. Because public and private pension funds own shares of such companies, many Canadian pensioners would be affected and their reduced incomes and spending levels would have further undesirable consequences for Canada’s GDP.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=18780
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/40/1/401c5-e.pdf
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/392/lega/rep/rep05dec07-e.pdf
&
Georges Erasmus wrote in the forward of DRUMBEAT: Anger & Renewal in Indian Country - ISBN#0-929091-03-5 ( page1):
"As people of the First Nations of Canada we have a vision of the sort of country we want to live in & to build in collaboration with other Canadians. It is certainly not the sort of country we have now... To do so we have to go back to the agreement made in the Two-Row Wampum Treaty signed between First Nations & the newly arrived Europeans in 1664. All across North America today First Nations share a common perception of what was then agreed: we would allow Europeans to stay among us & use a certain amount of our land, while in our own lands we would continue to exercise our own laws & maintain our ouw institutions & systems of government. We all believe that that vision is still very possible today, that as FN we should have our own governments with jurisdiction over our own lands & people. WE SHOULD DECIDE ABOUT AND BENEFIT FROM THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WE WANT IN OUR OWN TERRITORIES, NOT HAVE SUCH DEVELOPMENT FORCED ON US TO SERVE OUTSIDE INTERESTS."
Many know the current Aboriginal trends in Canada: fast growing predominately young Aboriginal population; increasing numbers of Aboriginal people in Canada’s major urban centres; significant cash and land treaty settlements; increase in Aboriginal community’s participation in large economic development projects and rapid deterioration of Aboriginal culture and language.
However did you know there are more than 370 million indigenous peoples in some 90 countries worldwide and that Canada has the second largest Aboriginal concentration in the world – second to New Zealand? Many of the issues facing Canada’s Aboriginal peoples are being experienced in other countries around the world.
In this session, through national and international case studies and best practices we will: discuss current trends and practices in Aboriginal/Indigenous Peoples community planning; look at how culture, language and lands are being protected for future generations; and review what new relationships and partnerships are being developed.
See :
Vivienne Beisel
Melody Lepine, Mikisew Cree First Nation ( from Ft. Chip)
Indian Oil and Gas Canada assists First Nations with all stages of resource management.
Prior to entering into any leasing agreement, Indian Oil and Gas Canada confirms that the land has reserve title and has been designated for oil and gas development by the First Nation, which allows IOGC to manage the resource.
IOGC assists the First Nation in the negotiation of subsurface agreements and ensures fair returns. IOGC drafts, issues and administers these agreements that allow companies to drill and produce oil and gas.
All revenues collected by IOGC on behalf of First Nations throughout the agreement life cycle are placed in regional trust fund accounts. This includes all bonuses, rents, considerations and royalties.
First Nations can apply to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to access their moneys for community projects and other uses. IOGC is responsible for receiving, depositing and transferring the moneys into these accounts.
*******************
Indian Oil and Gas Canada (IOGC) has filed 19 separate lawsuits on behalf of 19 First Nations in ..
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Canada+%2B+Indians++%2B+Oil+%26+Gas+Monies+%2B+sued+%2B+access&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessedge.ca%2Farchives%2Farticle.cfm%2Ffederal-agency-suing-144-energy-firms-375&ei=G97CUNK0LcLerAGklICgCQ&usg=AFQjCNHljxWt0ppNzmRTmpTRe0D4MXe_hw
In other words, Indians were lending the federal government money that, had it been managed by a private trustee, could have delivered significantly more returns.
It is a challenge that has been about three decades in the making. Until the 1970s, Canada’s Indian Act granted vast discretionary powers to Indian Agents in the administration of aboriginal business interests, children, housing and land on the 600-odd reserves across Canada.
Samson elders and councilors began asking tough questions about their assets when Indian Affairs transferred a degree of self-government to reserves in the 1970s. Few answers were forthcoming.
In 1989, after failed attempts to negotiate a return of Samson trust funds to the reserve, Chief Victor Buffalo filed his lawsuit against the government in federal court.
http://this.org/magazine/2000/12/01/this-land-is-whose-land/
“It’s interesting and exhausting at times,” Calgary senior partner Clarke Hunter said.
The first phase of the proceedings culminated in a 2005 decision (after a four-year trial) that the Crown had not mishandled the rates of return on the bands’ royalty monies — a decision unsuccessfully appealed by the bands up to the Supreme Court.
Hunter said that, in 2011, the firm did pre-trial work on the bands’ claims that the Crown failed to conduct itself properly in managing the bands’ interests in their oil and gas entitlements. That part of the case is in discoveries and will probably continue for several more years.
“It’s likely that there won’t be another mega-trial like the previous one,” Hunter said. The firm also worked on negotiating and transferring to the Ermineskin First Nation $200-million from the Crown to an independent trust.
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1694
( published June 29/2012)
http://sen.parl.gc.ca/nsibbeston/2007.htm
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/first-nations-long-shadow-assimilation
Then:
http://eaglescholar.georgiasouthern.edu:8080/jspui/bitstream/10518/3825/1/pinkins_carlyn_n_201105_ma.pdf
Now:
http://intercontinentalcry.org/harper-launches-major-first-nations-termination-plan-as-negotiating-tables-legitimize-canadas-colonialism/
http://blogcritics.org/books/article/book-review-the-inconvenient-indian-a/page-2/
&
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_lpt_e_1703.html
Aboriginal Affairs
2011 June Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada—Chapter 4—Programs for First Nations on Reserves
2009 Fall Report of the Auditor General of Canada—Chapter 6—Land Management and Environmental Protection on Reserves
2009 March Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada —Chapter 4—Treaty Land Entitlement Obligations—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Fact: An estimated 23,000 Aboriginal people currently live on 18 First Nations Reserves and
six Métis Settlements located within or adjacent to the province’s oil sands areas. Thousands
more live off-reserve and off-settlements across the region.
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/pdf/OSSResponsibleActionsProgressReport2011.pdf
&
http://www.aboriginal.alberta.ca/1.cfm
http://www.aboriginal.alberta.ca/documents/2012_ConsultationDiscussionPaper.pdf
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/FirstNationsConsultation/FirstNationsConsultationLands.aspx
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, 2012
QS-A011-080-EE-A1
Catalog R2-141/2012E
ISSN: 1711-8824
In Alberta there are:
45 First Nations in three treaty areas
140 reserves
Approximately 812,771 hectares of reserve land
The most commonly spoken First Nations' languages are: Blackfoot; Cree; Chipweyan; Dene; Sarcee; and Stoney (Nakoda Sioux)
Treaty 6
Signed at Carlton and
Fort Pitt in 1876
Covers central Alberta
and Saskatchewan
16 Alberta First Nations
&
Treaty 7
Signed at the Blackfoot
Crossing of Bow River and
Fort Macleod in 1877
Covers southern Alberta
5 Alberta First Nations
&
Treaty 8
Signed at Lesser Slave Lake
in 1899
Covers portions of northern
Alberta, British Columbia,
Saskatchewan and part of
Northwest Territories
24 Alberta First Nations
___________________________
Samson, Montana, Ermineskin and Bull recieve royalt
Hobbema is primarily a First Nation community that serves four reserves of the Cree nation. The four reserves are collectively known as the "four nations", which are party to Treaty Six. Ermineskin Cree Nation and Samson Cree Nation, the Louis Bull Tribe and the Montana First Nation.
So 4 out of 45 ...so 41 bands do not receive oil royalities
Treaty 7 Indians warned the AFN about Harper & the Northern Foundation many yrs. ago..since Flanagan's Calgary School anti-treaty seminars..
& the Koch brothers robbed Indians of many millions in the 1980's & played hell within US gov't since the early 1990's
http://opposethefuture.com/post/3899905675/kochoil
http://blog.ourfuture.org/20120309/Koch_And_Native-American_Reservation_Oil_Theft_?q=blog-entry/2011031120/koch-and-native-american-reservation-oil-theft
And of course much of the funding comes from Koch Industries through a network of think tanks and non-profit groups.
John Carpay, who is also involved with the Fraser Institute and Preston Manning's the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, is a regular speaker at an affiliate of Koch, the Atlas Experience, where like Stephen Harper, he preaches to the American conservatives on the evils of the Canadian identity.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html
http://pushedleft.blogspot.ca/2011/02/why-canadians-should-pay-attention-to.html
Are you going to call the man a racist now?