Grade 12 Social Justice and Equity
Canada’s First Nations – Some Facts
Source: Canadian Council on Social Development. 2003. Aboriginal Children in Poverty in Urban
Communities: Social exclusion and the growing racialization of poverty in Canada. (Online).
Available: http://www.ccsd.ca/pr/2003/aboriginal.htm
 In 2001, over 1.3 million people reported some Aboriginal ancestry. This was 4.4 % of the total
Canadian population…up from 3.8% in 1996.
 In 2001, 976,305 persons identified as Aboriginal peoples, 22.2% higher than in 1996, while the
Non-Aboriginal population grew by only 3.4% between 1996 and 2001.
 In 2001, those who identified as Aboriginal persons made up 3.3% of the total population,
compared with 2.8% in 1996.
 Only 31% of Aboriginal people lived on reserves and settlements, down from 33% in 1996.
 219,570 of the 286,500 Aboriginal children lived off reserve: 77% of all Aboriginal children
between the ages of birth and nine
 In 2001, 49% of the Aboriginal population lived in urban areas, up from 47% in 1996.
 One-quarter of the Aboriginal population lived in 10 metropolitan areas
 In order, the cities with the largest aboriginal populations were Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver,
Calgary, Toronto, Saskatoon, Regina, Ottawa-Hull, Montréal and Victoria.
 There were 55,755 Aboriginal people in Winnipeg in 2001, up from 45,750 in 1996, and
comprising 8% of Winnipeg’s total population.
 In 2001 Saskatoon held the highest concentration of Aboriginal inhabitants with 20,275
Aboriginal people (9%).
 In Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Aboriginal people accounted for 29% of total population.
 The median age of Canada's Aboriginal population was 24.7 years in 2001, compared to 37.7
years for Canada’s non-Aboriginal population.
 Children aged 14 and under were one-third of the Aboriginal population, compared to 19% in the
non-Aboriginal population in 2001.
 The Aboriginal population was 3.3% of Canada's total but Aboriginal children were 5.6% of all
children in Canada.
 Aboriginal people in Nunavut had a median age of only 19.1; in Saskatchewan 20.1; in Manitoba,
22.8.
 Children aged 14 and under were one-third of the Aboriginal population in 2001, far higher than
the corresponding share of 19% in the non-Aboriginal population.
 Although the Aboriginal population accounted for only 3.3% of Canada's total population,
Aboriginal children represented 5.6% of all children in Canada.
 Although the share of the total Aboriginal population in Saskatchewan and Manitoba was
relatively large - 14% in each of these provinces - the proportion of children, at about 25% and
23% respectively, was much larger.
 Aboriginal peoples in urban areas were more than twice as likely to live in poverty as nonAboriginal people.
 On average, 55.6% of Aboriginal people living in Canadian cities were poor in 1995 – this ranged
from 41% in Burnaby to 66% in Vancouver.
 Although Aboriginal people accounted for a very small proportion in most of the cities included
in the study (1.5%), the average proportion of poor people who were Aboriginal was 3.4%.
 In cities like Regina where there is a larger Aboriginal population, Aboriginal people accounted
for 24% of the poor. This was more than three times their proportion of the total population in
that city. Several factors can explain this high incidence of poverty among Aboriginal people,
including significant barriers in education and employment opportunities.
 Fewer Aboriginal children aged 14 and under lived with two parents in 2001 than did nonAboriginal children.









32% of Aboriginal children living on reserves, and 46% of Aboriginal children in the census
metropolitan areas, lived with a lone parent. Only 17% of non-Aboriginal children lived with a
lone parent
Twice the proportion of Aboriginal children lived with a lone parent in 2001 as did non-Aboriginal
children.
5% of Aboriginals living in large urban areas lived with a relative other than their parent(s), or
lived with a non-relative. Only 0.6% of non-Aboriginal children lived in this situation.
In 1996 75% of Aboriginal youth had incomes below $10,000 compared to 69% of non-Aboriginal
people.
In 1995 46% of all Aboriginal peoples had incomes below $10,000 compared to 27% of NonAboriginal people
In 2001 only 8% of the 25-34 age-group of Aboriginal peoples had a completed university degree,
while 28% of all Canadians did.
In 1996, 68% of Aboriginal youth were in school compared to 83% of non-Aboriginal youth.
Only 24% of Aboriginal peoples under 25 were able to converse in an Aboriginal language
The median pre-tax income of all persons indicating Aboriginal identity is $13,526, or 61% of
median income for all Canadians ($22,120)
Source: CBC News. 2006. Aboriginal Children are Poorest in Country: Report. (Online) Available:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/24/child-poverty.html
 One aboriginal child in eight is disabled, double the rate of all children in Canada.
 Among First Nations children, 43% lack basic dental care.
 Overcrowding among First Nations families is double the rate of that for all Canadian families.
 Mould contaminates almost half of all First Nations households.
 Almost half of aboriginal children under 15 years old residing in urban areas live with a single
parent.
 Close to 100 First Nations communities must boil their water.
 Of all off-reserve aboriginal children, 40% live in poverty.
Source: Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. 2004. Urban Aboriginal Child Poverty
Background. (Online). Available: http://www.ofifc.org/ofifchome/page/notes.htm
 52.1% of all Aboriginal children are poor
 12% of Aboriginal families are headed by parents under the age of 25 years
 27% of Aboriginal families are headed by single mothers
 40% of single Aboriginal mothers earn less than $12,000 per year
 47.2% of the Ontario Aboriginal population receives less than $10,000 per year
 Aboriginal people have a disability rate that is more than twice the national average
 One in every four off-reserve Aboriginal children lives in poor housing conditions, compared to
13% of all Canadian children
 Nearly 17% of Aboriginal children reported abusing alcohol compared to 5.4% of Caucasian kids.
About seven times more aboriginal kids than white kids said they’d used marijuana in the past
year.
 For every dollar earned by an Aboriginal woman, non-Aboriginal men earn $2.34
 In 2001, the Aboriginal unemployment rate was 19.1% while for all of Canada, the
unemployment rate was 7.4%
Source: Nolte, J., 1984. Native Canadians: A Third World Population. Tellus 5(2) (Online) Available:
http://www.popline.org/docs/0646/267371.html
 Nearly 80% of all Fetal Alcohol Syndrome cases in Canada occur among Native Canadians.
 Neonatal mortality among the Native population is double the national rate, due mostly to
complications at delivery and congenital anomalies.
 The leading causes of infant deaths up to 1 year are respiratory ailments, and infectious and
parasitic diseases. This reflects the crowed conditions in Native housing, and the lack of sewage
disposal and potable water.
 Family planning is not encourage or generally adopted; it is seen as an attempt by the White
population to control Native Canadians and commit racial genocide.
Source: Children and Youth Crime Prevention through Social Development – Canadian Council on Social
Development. 2004. Social Challenges: The Well-being of Aboriginal People. (Online) Available:
http://www.ccsd.ca/cpsd/ccsd/c_ab.htm
 Aboriginal people are three times more likely than non-Aboriginals to be victims of violent crime
 Statistics from Correctional Service Canada show that while Aboriginal people represent only
2.8% of the Canadian population, they account for 18% of those who are incarcerated in federal
institutions
 In the Prairie Provinces, 50% of prisoners are Aboriginals
 The number of Aboriginal children involved with the child welfare system across Canada
increased by 71.5% between 1995 and 2001
 According to the United Nations, First Nations children in western countries live in Third World
conditions with an estimated 80% of urban Aboriginal children under the age of 6 living in
poverty
 Despite $3.5-billion spent on addressing the housing problem by the Government of Canada in
the past decade, reserve housing suffers from "shoddy workmanship and widespread mould
problems," a growing shortage that now numbers between 20,000 and 35,000 units, and an
average wait of 32 months for assisted housing in the Far North.
Source: Statistics Canada. 2002. Education and Learning among Aboriginal children. (Online) Available:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html
 The 2001 unemployment rate for Aboriginal adults aged 25 to 34 with university degrees was 8%,
while that for those who had completed grade 9 but not high school was 28%. For those who had
not completed grade 9 the unemployment rate was 40%.
 Over 8% of Aboriginal children in non-reserve areas had low birth weights compared with 6% of
all Canadian children
Source: Mark Milke. 2013. Ever Higher: Government spending on Canada’s Aboriginals since 1947.
Fraser Institute - Centre for Aboriginal Policy Studies. (online)
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/researchnews/research/publications/Aboriginal-spending-2013.pdf.pdf
Federal Spending
 The spending on Canada’s Aboriginal peoples has been significant. In real terms, Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) spending on Aboriginal peoples rose from
$79 million annually in 1946/47 to almost $7.9 billion in 2011/12.
 Using census data and adjusting for population, AANDC spending increased from $922 per
registered First Nation individual in 1949/50 to $9,056 in 2011/12….an increase of 882% in
spending per First Nations person. In comparison, total federal program spending per person on
all Canadians rose by 387 percent, from $1,504 in 1949/50 to $7,316 in 2011/12
 Employment and Skills Development Canada (ESDC), spends money annually on housing on First
Nations reserves across Canada. Annual on-reserve housing programs funded through ESDC
averaged $242 million in annual expenditures. In comparison, ESDC’s subsidy expenditures for

non-reserve housing averaged just over $1.3 billion annually during that period. In 2011/12,
ESDC’s on-reserve program equated to $479 per Aboriginal person on reserve. ESDC spending on
housing programs for all Canadians amounted to $51 per person in that year.
The amount spent by Health Canada per First Nations/Inuit person rose from $2,055 in 1994/95
to $2,626 in 2011/12. Included in the above $2.4 billion figure for 2011/12 is the $1.1 billion cost
of supplementary health care benefits for 896,624 First Nations and Inuit peoples, the NonInsured Health Benefits Program (NIHB). This Health Canada program delivers health care
benefits to First Nations and Inuit peoples for which other Canadians must normally purchase
extra insurance, or purchase out-of-pocket. In 2011/12, eligible First Nations and Inuit enrollees
had access to the following extra services including (1) vision care (expenditures of $29.8 million),
(2) dental care ($219.1 million), (3) medical transportation ($333.3 million), (4) pharmaceuticals
($459.4 million), (5) other health care including medical supplies and equipment, short-term
crisis intervention, and mental health counselling and (6) monthly health care premiums in the
province of British Columbia for Indians/Inuit which normally cost a British Columbian between
$798 (for an individual) or $1,596 (for a family of three or more) annually.
Provincial Spending
 Each province varies widely. In total, and adjusted for inflation, provincial spending on
Aboriginals rose from just $42 million in 1993/94 to $711 million per year by 2011/12. The
provinces, combined, spent $75 per registered First Nations person in 1993/94, compared with
$819 per person in 2011/12, an increase of 985 percent. In comparison, total provincial spending
per person on all Canadians in the provinces rose from $7,340 in 1993/94 to $9,205 in 2011/12,
an increase of 25 percent
Colonization, Racism, Reawakening and Reconciliation
Adapted from: Ontario Education Resource Bank. 2008. Activity 1 – Survival and Resistance. (Online).
Resource Bank ID ELO1135710. Available http://resources.elearningontario.ca/d2l/tools/CMS/content/viewTopic.asp?ou=10489&isLorBei
ngViewed=1&loid=53509&topicId=212458
Colonization
What is colonization?
Colonization is “the act of one country settling another place, in order to become the new rulers of the
new country, and to live in the new country" (Wikipedia). Colonization has been the reality for Native
American people in Canada since the arrival of the newcomers. Although direct efforts of colonization are
not as overt as in the 1500’s, Native American people continue to work for decolonization.
What is decolonization?
Decolonization “is the process of ridding one’s mind, culture and community of the negative impacts of
colonization (i.e., the imposition of another Peoples’s culture. Decolonization is a vital part of healing,
because it is only through knowing oneself that one can become whole)" (Learning about Walking in
Beauty: Placing Aboriginal Perspectives in Canadian Classrooms).
Naming Oppression
The words we use to ‘frame’ our relationships
For many non-Aboriginal people, education about Aboriginal issues starts with terminology related to
Aboriginal peoples.
In rapidly changing political times, labels take on marked significance, their changes reflecting some of the
concerns with people are wrestling. One often sees the words Aboriginal First Nations, Native, and Indian
used in different places and by different people to refer to themselves as others as the descendants of the
original inhabitants of these lands
Aboriginal is a term, which simply means from the original people. It is also a legal term that is used in the
Constitution of Canada, which recognizes “Indians, Inuit and the Metis."
First Nations is a politically charged term encompassing a trilogy:
1. Primacy of place,
2. Reference to a political entity with structures of governance, and
3. Through its plural form, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures forming these political entities.
Indicating that people are born in that place, Native is somewhat ambiguous because of the claims of
many people of immigrant ancestry who have been born in North America to be native. The capitalization
of the word is usually what distinguishes its application to Aboriginal Peoples from the more general
usage.
Lastly, Indian refers to people who are defined and governed by a set of federal laws called The Indian
Act. The definition has been the site of considerable controversy over the years. It excludes many people
of Aboriginal ancestry, among them the Metis and the Inuit, although the Inuit do receive transfers and
services accorded to Status Indians. The term Indian, legally under the Indian Act, also excludes those
people whose ancestors were at one time part of the group termed Indians, but excludes those people
whose ancestors were at one time part of the group termed Indians, but who have become “non-status
Indians" because of historic and current discriminatory provisions of that Act, or other British Crown or
Canadian government policies. Thus underlying its usage is a whole set of legal and political meanings not
apparent to the vast majority of Canadians. For reasons elaborated in this report, few of us realize that
the intent and ongoing purpose of the Indian Act is to affect the assimilation into Canadian society of all
Aboriginal Peoples – a process also described as cultural genocide. At the same time, while the term
Indian is based on a lost European’s misnomer, it has a great social and historical significance, ands is a
part of the common vocabulary of many people of Aboriginal ancestry and most Canadians of other
heritages.
Within this “terminology stew”, it must be recognized that increasingly First Nations and Aboriginal
Peoples are choosing to return to their traditional ways and to identify themselves as members of their
particular Nation or band. Patricia
Monture-Angus (1995) writes, “I am a member of the Ho-Dee-No-Sau-Nee Confederacy …For many years,
our nations were known as the Iroquois. But, this is not how we call ourselves. There are six nations which
make up the Ho-Dee-N0-Sau-Nee Confederacy. We are the Seneca, Oneida, Onondoga, Cayuga, Mohawk,
and Tuscarara. I do not like to say that I am a Mohawk woman. A friend recently told me that she had
been taught that Mohawk means man-eater in on of the European languages…That is not what being
Indian means to me. I am a member of my nation and that is a good way to be.”
Aboriginal peoples often state in English translation of their languages that they have been in these
territories since time immemorial. As Kwaguelth leader Gloria Cranmer-Webster puts it succinctly, “We
have always lived here" (National Film Board, 1993). For those people who ascribe to a European interest
in attempting precision, and to a post-contact worldview where only hard science can address reality,
there are many carbon-dated examples of the existence of the ancestors of a Aboriginal peoples here in
North America since times before any written records” (Canadian Race Relations Foundation, 2002).
Racism
Racism is a social ill that must be dealt with in today’s society. It is therefore important to learn about how
to challenge racism effectively within contemporary society for the benefit of all people of today and
tomorrow.
Relationships - Treaties
The theme of relationships is one of the most important concepts in Aboriginal philosophies, and it is the
easiest way to understand how and why things happen the way they do. The concept of relationships is
inherent in threads of Western culture as well. Western or non-Native science talks about cause-andeffect, which is a type of relationship. Politics is all about the relationship between the individual and the
Nation. Thus, the concept of Treaties really is just another relationship.
Treaties were, and still are, ways of defining relationships between Indigenous peoples, the first people
here, and European settlers, or those who came afterwards. Here’s another way to look at it. Imagine
you’re sitting with someone you don’t know, who doesn’t speak the same language, and who has an item
that you would like to have. You also have an item that he or she would like to have. How do you decide
what you will exchange and how you’re going to do it? There’s no rule book. You’ll have to figure it out,
through trial and error, and define the relationship between the two of you somehow. When you look at
the Treaties, that’s what you see: a process of trial and error, where Indigenous and non-Indigenous
people did their best to define the parameters of how to live together, while still maintaining themselves
as Nations. This was, and still remains, a difficult task. How do you create something out of nothing?
Treaties from the Beginning
First, you start with agreeing to talk. It might sound silly, but agreeing to be civil is the stepping stone to
talking about other things. That’s what the first treaties were all about. The Peace and Friendship Treaties
of the 18th Century, and the Two-Row Wampum or Kaswentha between the Haudenosaunee and the
European settlers are two examples of the beginnings of this “conversation” or relationship between
Native and non-Native.
Peace and Friendship Treaties
The Peace and Friendship Treaties are basically exactly what they say they are. In them, there’s some
discussion about which Nation, whether it be Indigenous or non-Indigenous, can do what and where, but
basically they are treaties where the Nations of the East, notably the Mi’kmaq and the Maliseet, and the
British Crown agree to a relationship of Peace and Friendship. They start out simply enough, but like
anything else, become more complicated as the relationship evolves.
Two-Row Wampum Treaty
The Two-Row Wampum is another treaty that sets out to define how Indigenous and non-Indigenous
people will relate to each other. Basically, what it says is that Haudenosaunee people will travel in their
canoe, and Europeans will travel in their ship, both traveling side by side, but not interfering in each
other’s directions. In the Resources section, you will find a link to a picture of the Two-Row Wampum.
Robinson-Huron Treaties
The next phases of the development of Treaties in Canada were the Robinson-Huron Treaties and the
Numbered Treaties, which are called so because they don’t have a “name,” just a number! You will find
information on those on the Manitoba Chiefs webpage listed below, as well as the CBC webpage, and a
map which will help you understand where things are located.
Modern Treaties (aka Land Claims)
Land Claims are modern treaties. They have been in the process of negotiation for many decades, and
sometimes take upwards of 25 years to finalize. There are three major modern treaties (James
Bay/Northern Quebec, Nunavut, and Nisga’a), and several dozens of smaller ones. For the purposes of this
course, we will be examining only these three largest.
Canadian Treaties since 1973
Since 1973, the Federal Government and Indigenous Nations have negotiated and signed over 12 treaties.
These modern treaties address matters related to lands and resources. Some provide for the negotiation
of self-government agreements as well. Most if not all of them have taken over twenty years of
negotiation to finalize.
James Bay/Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA)
The JBNQA was negotiated in 1975, with the adhesion in 1978 of the Naskapi of Northern Quebec. There
were five parties involved: Hydro Quebec, the Province of Quebec, the Government of Canada, the Grand
Council of the Crees (representing 6600 Cree) and the Quebec Inuit Association (representing 4400 Inuit).
This treaty was negotiated under extreme duress and pressure. In fact, the Cree found out about the
construction of a massive hydroelectric project on their land over the radio! This construction, which was
happening without their permission, was the catalyst (the beginning spark) for the negotiations. The Cree
were successful in gaining an injunction which halted construction for one week, and the following
blockade forced negotiations. This modern treaty was negotiated very quickly, as it was begun in 1974
and completed in 1975, which has led to trouble (some parts were not completely defined, so have led to
further discussions). It is a landmark, in that it has set what has become almost the standard for modern
treaties by containing two elements: extinguishment, and joint management bodies.
Extinguishment means that by agreeing to the treaty, the Indigenous people named in the treaty (in the
JBNQA, the Inuit, Cree and Naskapi) agree to forever snuff out any claims to land outside what is agreed
to in the treaty itself. They forever have no more rights anywhere else outside the boundaries of the
treaty territory. It is the oldest and most out-dated policy, and is unjust because it is asking Indigenous
communities to surrender forever something for which the true value is uncertain, and which they have
had since long before the Europeans came.
Joint Management Bodies are organizations that manage and distribute the funds that arise out of the
treaty, as well as any programs, education, land and resource management, and so on. The joint
management bodies of the JBNQA have representatives from the Cree, Naskapi and Inuit, as well as the
Federal Government. It is the Federal Government who controls the Joint Management Board.
The JBNQA contains stipulations about remuneration (being paid back) for the loss of and damage to the
Land, education, health care, and resource management, with a significant difference to past Treaties: It
also contained a guaranteed annual income for hunters and trappers. The whole thrust of land claims to
that point had been to move people off the Land and into communities, but the JBNQA uses a small
amount of the income generated by the hydroelectric development to assist those still living on the Land.
Overall, though, the JBNQA has many problems. At the grassroots level, there is a lot of distrust because
of many parts of the treaty which have yet to be implemented thirty years after its signing. As well, many
unforeseen environmental problems due to mass flooding for the hydroelectric projects have caused
havoc (chaos and huge problems) in the communities of the North, as have continued hydroelectric
development.
Nunavut Treaty
The negotiations for the Nunavut Treaty were begun by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada in 1975, when they
attempted to negotiate a global land claim for all Inuit of Canada. In 1978, regional groups began to
negotiate their own claims. At that time, the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut (TFN) wanted selfgovernment included in their treaty, which was inspired by the Greenland Home Rule example. This was
mostly unsuccessful as a negotiation point till the late 1980s. By 1989, only two land claims or modern
treaties had ever been negotiated, but the TFN persevered, and succeeded in having Article 4 of the
Treaty agreed upon, which is the self-government clause. The Nunavut land claim resulted in $550 million
being offered to 27 000 beneficiaries, as well as a certain amount of self-government within the larger
Canadian nation, through becoming the third territory after the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is
the largest land claim ever negotiated, and makes the Inuit of Nunavut the largest land-holders in North
America. There are many joint-management boards, as well as guaranteed annual income for hunters and
elder support. This is known as “soft” money, as it is a limited program for five years, and is a direct
outgrowth of the first seeds planted by the JBNQA.
The Inuit of Nunavut will control as outright owners 18% of the land base of Nunavut, and control the rest
through government as they are the vast majority of the population of the territory.
Once the final agreement was signed in 1992, the TFN ceased to exist, and became Nunavut Tungavik
Incorporated, which is responsible for the finances and management of culture and language programs,
as well as others.
This Treaty also includes an extinguishment clause.
Nisga’a Treaty
The Nisga’a Treaty is the first modern land claim in British Columbia. It contains elements of selfgovernment. There is no extinguishment clause, but rather an exhaustion clause, which means that the
people who are beneficiaries of the Treaty will still maintain their Aboriginal Rights to fish, hunt and
otherwise use the Land, essentially what amounts to being Aboriginal property rights. There are 6000
beneficiaries of this Treaty, and the financial remuneration (payment) was $190 million, and 2000 km2,
including subsurface rights, which in most other Treaties, the Government kept rather than return them
to the Indigenous peoples. The Nisga’a Treaty cancels out all tax exempt status for those under its
umbrella, and also will eventually replace most of the Indian Act, except where the Indian Act defines who
is eligible to be Nisga’a. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply, as will all general laws.
For the economic well-being of the community, the Nisga’a will own the forest resources within their
territory, and individuals can purchase timber licenses for 150 000 square metres. As well, the Nisga’a will
have rights to 26% of the Naas River salmon fishery for subsistence and sale. The Nisga’a territory is run
by the Nisga’a Lisims government, based on Nisga’a traditions, which controls citizenship, cultural
programs, education, and so on, all with powers on a provincial level. The final agreement was signed in
1998.
Look at the cartoon
 In your own words, explain how you think the effect of colonization of Native American peoples
may be present today. Provide three ideas with your answer.