In the next 20 years the aboriginal population categorized by First Nations, Metis, and Inuit is projected to increase dramatically as more people begin to report themselves as being aboriginal.
According to data from the 2006 Census and 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) over the course of five years the aboriginal population as a whole increased by 20 per cent. While high fertility among aboriginal women is one factor in the population increase, the largest factor driving the growth has to do with an increased number of people identifying themselves as aboriginal.
Aboriginal identity has been a point of confusion at the legal, political, and personal level. Legislative changes to the Indian Act and most recently the Supreme Court recognition of Metis peoples in April, have sought to legally define aboriginal peoples. For the Metis population, recognition of their identity has been especially difficult in the face of discrimination.
“Metis identity is a very confusing thing to a lot of people, mainly because there’s two major aspects of our identity; not only do you have to be of mixed ancestry: European and aboriginal, but you also have to have that connection to a historical Metis settlement,” said Kelly Douquette, a Metis law student at the University of Ottawa.
Douquette thinks more people will identify themselves as Metis after the Supreme Court decision.
“Now that our rights are recognized and we are legitimized by the government, a lot of people don’t feel as afraid to come forward, and really be proud of who they are.”
“Self-reported identification is more important for the Metis population and the non-status Indian population, because even within the aboriginal population you have differences of main factors of growth,” Stephanie Langlois, senior analyst for Statistics Canada demography division, said.
“Someone in the past might not have identified themselves as an aboriginal person and five years later they self-identify with an aboriginal group.”
Annie Turner, a statistician with Statistics Canada, said the drastic increase can be attributed to a number of factors.
“We know that fertility rate is higher for aboriginal people compared to non-aboriginal people but there are many factors that we need to take into account when comparing the aboriginal population between 2006 to 2011, so there could be slight differences in the wording of the questions, differences in methodology between the 2006 Census and NHS, some legislative changes for example Bill C-31 in 1985 or Bill C-3 in 2011, which could affect these concepts of aboriginal identity or registered Indian status, as well as the definition of reserves.”
The 2036 projections estimate that the aboriginal populations could rise even higher if certain growth characteristics such as fertility and ethnic mobility continue their trends. In the western provinces such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba, aboriginal populations could make up one in five people in this provinces by 2036.
Meanwhile in the territories like the Yukon, Nunavut, and the North West Territories, Inuit hold the highest share of the total population although of a much smaller total population.
Compared to the non-aboriginal population, the aboriginal population is growing at a much faster rate. The non-aboriginal population is increasing less than one per cent a year, mainly due to immigration, while the aboriginal population is averaging 1.1 to 2.2 per cent.
It has been 25 years since the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was introduced in Canada, but despite years of consultations and research, the federal government has yet to accomplish most of the recommendations outlined in the report.
Established in 1991, the Royal Commission was created to help repair broken relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous communities.
To create the report, the federal government completed hundreds of studies and gathered testimony from over 2000 individuals to see how indigenous communities were hindered by Canada’s social, political and economic climates. The Commission’s results were revealed in 1996 through a report which made over 440 recommendations to be implemented over a 20-year period.
A portion of Volume 5 of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples annotated in DocumentCloud:
(Click inside the annotation to see the entire document and other annotations)
The main conclusion of the report was that Canada needed to overhaul its relationship with indigenous people in order to show respect for their history, culture and right to self-determination.
“In the final report, it made sense to recommend that the government establish a nation-to-nation relationship,” said Paul Chartrand, one of the commissioners for the Royal Commission.
The “nation-to-nation” relationship would allow indigenous communities to govern under their traditional structures and work alongside the Canadian government to improve access to things like education, infrastructure and healthcare.
The nation-to-nation concept had not been employed by previous governments in power , but in December 2015, Justin Trudeau announced that they would be forming this relationship with indigenous communities.
“The Trudeau government from early on has identified Aboriginal issues as a priority,” said Linc Kesler, an associate professor at the University of British Colombia that specializes in indigenous studies.
“They also have at least begun discussions about the inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women, so I think a lot of people were happy to see that.”
The government’s announcement was promising for some, but Chartrand remains skeptical of the Liberal government in terms of what its specific plans are.
“At the moment, it’s pure rhetoric. We now have a government that says it will have a nation-to-nation relationship. Well you should be looking at Royal Commission for inspiration on what that might mean. But nobody’s mentioning it,” said Chartrand.
“The government can do anything in the first year, and by the third year, no one remembers. Public amnesia is a constant feature of our country.”
Looking back at the actions of previous governments, Kesler agrees that political leaders continue to make the same promises, but fail to provide indigenous communities with tangible results.
“What people have shared with me is that they have not seen movement on the recommendations in the Royal Commission,” said Kesler.
“If you were to look at the recommendations that the [Truth and Reconciliation Commission] included in the final report, you would see many of the same items identified as in the Royal Commission.”
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the latest government initiative which attempts to repair damage caused to indigenous communities, but according to Chartrand, it is not entirely comprehensive.
“The merits of the Truth and Reconciliation report stand on its own, but you cannot replace the foundation that was set by the Royal Commission’s broader mandate,” said Chartrand.
If the government’s past actions are an indication of future behaviour, Kesler believes it’s appropriate for indigenous people to be “cautiously optimistic” about Trudeau’s enthusiasm for indigenous issues.
“I think people have not seen the kind of actions on the whole that they had really been hoping would be the result of Royal Commission,” said Kesler.
“That’s not however, to say that there hasn’t been change, but it’s not the kind of change that the Royal Commission called for.”
Volume 5 of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is the main document which I reflect on in my story. I found Volume 5 of the commission to be particularly relevant to the ideas discussed in my article because it outlines the main objectives of the report which were supposed to be implemented over a twenty year period. I found a PDF version of the document through Queen’s University online library catalogue and converted the sections of the report using DocumentCloud.
Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report
Since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is one of the most recent initiatives completed by the federal government which deals with indigenous relations, I thought it was important to include this document in my research as a tool for comparison. Both of my interview subjects made comparisons between the Royal Commission and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission so I included a hyperlink to this document so that readers could compare the two documents side-by-side if they wished. Looking at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report provided evidence for my argument that the newer report essentially repeats made of the recommendations made previously in the Royal Commission. This helped to illustrate the point that these commissions are heavy on rhetoric, but light on concrete results. I found a PDF version of a summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by visiting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s website.
