Hubbry Logo
Indigenous peoples in CanadaIndigenous peoples in CanadaMain
Open search
Indigenous peoples in Canada
Community hub
Indigenous peoples in Canada
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Indigenous peoples in Canada
Indigenous peoples in Canada
from Wikipedia

Indigenous peoples in Canada (also known as Aboriginals)[2] are the Indigenous peoples within the boundaries of Canada. They comprise the First Nations,[3] Inuit,[4] and Métis,[5] representing roughly 5.0% of the total Canadian population. There are over 600 recognized First Nations governments or bands with distinctive cultures, languages, art, and music.[6][7]

Key Information

Old Crow Flats and Bluefish Caves are some of the earliest known sites of human habitation in Canada.[8] The characteristics of Indigenous cultures in Canada prior to European colonization included permanent settlements,[9] agriculture,[10] civic and ceremonial architecture,[11] complex societal hierarchies, and trading networks.[12] Métis nations of mixed ancestry originated in the mid-17th century when First Nations and Inuit married Europeans, primarily French settlers.[13] First Nations and Métis peoples played a critical part in the development of European colonies in Canada, particularly for their role in assisting Europeans during the North American fur trade.

Various Aboriginal laws, treaties, and legislation have been enacted between European immigrants and Indigenous groups across Canada. The impact of settler colonialism in Canada can be seen in its culture, history, politics, laws, and legislatures.[14] Historically, this included assimilationist policies affecting Indigenous languages, traditions, religion and the degradation of Indigenous communities that has contemporarily been described by some, including academics and politicians, as a cultural genocide, or genocide.[15]

The modern Indigenous right to self-government provides for Indigenous self-government in Canada and the management of cultural, political, health and economic responsibilities within Indigenous communities. National Indigenous Peoples Day recognizes the vast cultures and contributions of Indigenous peoples to the history of Canada.[16] First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples of all backgrounds have become prominent figures in Canada and have helped shape the Canadian cultural identity.[17]

Terminology

[edit]

In Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, "Aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples.[18] "Aboriginal" as a collective noun[19] is a specific term of art used as a legal term encompassing all Indigenous peoples living in Canada.[20][21] Although "Indian" is a term still commonly used in legal documents for First Nations, the descriptors "Indian" and "Eskimo" have fallen into disuse in Canada; most consider them to be pejorative.[2][22][23] Indian remains in place as the legal term used in the Canadian Constitution.[2][a] Aboriginal peoples has begun to be considered outdated and is slowly being replaced by the term Indigenous peoples.[b] There is also an effort to recognize each Indigenous group as a distinct nation, much as there are distinct European, African, and Asian cultures in their respective places.[31]

First Nations (most often used in the plural) has come into general use since the 1970s, replacing Indians and Indian bands in everyday vocabulary.[20][21] However, on Indian reserves, First Nations is being supplanted by members of various nations referring to themselves by their group or ethnic identity. In conversation, this would be "I am Haida", or "we are Kwantlens", in recognition of their First Nations ethnicities.[32] Also coming into general use since the 1970s, First Peoples refers to all Indigenous groups, i.e. First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.[33][34][2]

Notwithstanding Canada's location within the Americas, the term Native American is hardly ever used in Canada, in order to avoid any confusion due to the ambiguous meaning of the word "American". Therefore, the term is typically used only in reference to the Indigenous peoples within the boundaries of the present-day United States.[35] Native Canadians was often used in Canada to differentiate this American term until the 1980s.[36]

In contrast to the more-specific Aboriginal, one of the issues with the term native is its general applicability: in certain contexts, it could be used in reference to non-Indigenous peoples in regards to an individual place of origin / birth.[37] For instance, people who were born or grew up in Calgary may call themselves "Calgary natives", as in they are native to that city. With this in mind, even the term native American, as another example, may very well indicate someone who is native to America rather than a person who is ethnically Indigenous to the boundaries of the present-day United States. In this sense, native may encompass a broad range of populations and is therefore not recommended,[37] although it is not generally considered offensive.

The Indian Act (Revised Statutes of Canada (R.S.C.), 1985, c. I-5) sets the legal term Indian, designating that "a person who pursuant to this Act is registered as an Indian or is entitled to be registered as an Indian."[38] Section 5 of the act states that a registry shall be maintained "in which shall be recorded the name of every person who is entitled to be registered as an Indian under this Act."[38] No other term is legally recognized for the purpose of registration and the term Indian specifically excludes reference to Inuit as per section 4 of the act.[39]

An Aboriginal community in Northern Ontario

The term Eskimo has pejorative connotations in Canada and Greenland. Indigenous peoples in those areas have replaced the term Eskimo with Inuit,[40][41] though the Yupik of Alaska and Siberia do not consider themselves Inuit, and ethnographers agree they are a distinct people.[23][41] They prefer the terminology Yupik, Yupiit, or Eskimo. The Yupik languages are linguistically distinct from the Inuit languages, but are related to each other.[23] Linguistic groups of Arctic people have no universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik across the geographical area inhabited by them.[23]

Besides these ethnic descriptors, Aboriginal peoples are often divided into legal categories based on their relationship with the Crown (i.e. the state). Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal government (as opposed to the provinces) the sole responsibility for "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians." The government inherited treaty obligations from the British colonial authorities in Eastern Canada and signed treaties itself with First Nations in Western Canada (the Numbered Treaties). The Indian Act, passed by the federal Parliament in 1876, has long governed its interactions with all treaty and non-treaty peoples.[42]

Members of First Nations bands who are subject to the Indian Act are compiled on a list called the Indian Register, and such people are designated as status Indians. Many non-treaty First Nations and all Inuit and Métis are not subject to the Indian Act. However, two court cases have clarified that Inuit, Métis, and non-status First Nations are all covered by the term Indians in the Constitution Act, 1867. The first was Reference Re Eskimos (1939), covering Inuit; the second was Daniels v. Canada (2013), which concerns Métis and non-status First Nations.[43]

History

[edit]

Paleo-Indian period

[edit]
Map of early human migrations based on the Out of Africa theory; figures are in thousands of years ago (kya)[44]

According to North American archaeological and genetic evidence, migration to North and South America made them the last continents in the world with human habitation.[45] During the Wisconsin glaciation, 50,000–17,000 years ago, falling sea levels allowed people to move across the Bering land bridge that joined Siberia to northwest North America (Alaska).[46] Alaska was ice-free because of low snowfall, allowing a small population to exist. The Laurentide ice sheet covered most of Canada, blocking nomadic inhabitants and confining them to Alaska (East Beringia) for thousands of years.[47][48]

Indigenous genetic studies suggest that the first inhabitants of the Americas share a single ancestral population, one that developed in isolation, conjectured to be Beringia.[49][50] The isolation of these peoples in Beringia might have lasted 10,000–20,000 years.[51][52][53] Around 16,500 years ago, the glaciers began melting, allowing people to move south and east into Canada and beyond.[54][55][56]

The first inhabitants of North America arrived in Canada at least 14,000 years ago.[57] It is believed the inhabitants entered the Americas pursuing Pleistocene mammals such as the giant beaver, steppe wisent (bison), muskox, mastodons, woolly mammoths and ancient reindeer (early caribou).[58] One route hypothesized is that people walked south by way of an ice-free corridor on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, and then fanned out across North America before continuing on to South America.[59] The other conjectured route is that they migrated, either on foot or using primitive boats, down the Pacific coast to the tip of South America, and then crossed the Rockies and Andes.[60] Evidence of the latter has been covered by a sea level rise of hundreds of metres following the last ice age.[61][62]

The Old Crow Flats and basin was one of the areas in Canada untouched by glaciations during the Pleistocene Ice ages, thus it served as a pathway and refuge for ice age plants and animals.[63] The area holds evidence of early human habitation in Canada dating from about 12,000 years ago.[64] Fossils from the area include some never accounted for in North America, such as hyenas and large camels.[65] Bluefish Caves is an archaeological site in Yukon from which a specimen of apparently human-worked mammoth bone was radiocarbon dated to 12,000 years ago.[64]

A Clovis blade with medium to large lanceolate spear-knifepoints. Side is parallel to convex and exhibit careful pressure flaking along the blade edge. The broadest area is near the midsection or toward the base. The Base is distinctly concave with a characteristic flute or channel flake removed from one or, more commonly, both surfaces of the blade. The lower edges of the blade and base is ground to dull edges for hafting. Clovis points also tend to be thicker than the typically thin latter stage Folsom points. Length: 4–20 cm/1.5–8 in. Width: 2.5–5 cm/1–2
A Clovis point created using bi-facial percussion flaking (that is, each face is flaked on both edges alternatively with a percussor)

Clovis sites dated at 13,500 years ago were discovered in western North America during the 1930s. Clovis peoples were regarded as the first widespread Paleo-Indian inhabitants of the New World and ancestors to all Indigenous peoples in the Americas.[66]

Localized regional cultures developed from the time of the Younger Dryas cold climate period from 12,900 to 11,500 years ago.[67] The Folsom tradition is characterized by the use of Folsom points as projectile tips at archaeological sites. These tools assisted activities at kill sites that marked the slaughter and butchering of bison.[68]

The land bridge existed until 13,000–11,000 years ago, long after the oldest proven human settlements in the New World began.[69] Lower sea levels in the Queen Charlotte sound and Hecate Strait produced great grass lands called archipelago of Haida Gwaii.[70] Hunter-gatherers of the area left distinctive lithic technology tools and the remains of large butchered mammals, occupying the area from 13,000–9,000 years ago.[70] In July 1992, the Government of Canada officially designated X̱á:ytem (near Mission, British Columbia) as a national historic site, one of the first Indigenous spiritual sites in Canada to be formally recognized in this manner.[71]

The Plano cultures was a group of hunter-gatherer communities that occupied the Great Plains area of North America between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago.[72] The Paleo-Indians moved into new territory as it emerged from under the glaciers. Big game flourished in this new environment.[73] The Plano culture is characterized by a range of projectile point tools collectively called Plano points, which were used to hunt bison. Their diets also included pronghorn, elk, deer, raccoon and coyote.[72] At the beginning of the Archaic period, they began to adopt a sedentary approach to subsistence.[72] Sites in and around Belmont, Nova Scotia, have evidence of Plano-Indians, indicating small seasonal hunting camps, perhaps re-visited over generations from around 11,000–10,000 years ago.[72] Seasonal large and smaller game fish and fowl were food and raw material sources. Adaptation to the harsh environment included tailored clothing and skin-covered tents on wooden frames.[72]

Archaic period

[edit]

The North American climate stabilized by 8000 BCE (10,000 years ago); climatic conditions were very similar to today's.[74] This led to widespread migration, cultivation and later a dramatic rise in population all over the Americas.[74] Over the course of thousands of years, Indigenous peoples of the Americas domesticated, bred and cultivated a large array of plant species. These species now constitute 50–60% of all crops in cultivation worldwide.[75]

"Map of North America showing in red the pre-contact distribution of Na-Dene languages"
Distribution of Na-Dene languages shown in red

The vastness and variety of Canada's climates, ecology, vegetation, fauna, and landform separations have defined ancient peoples implicitly into cultural or linguistic divisions. Canada is surrounded north, east, and west with coastline and since the last ice age, Canada has consisted of distinct forest regions. Language contributes to the identity of a people by influencing social life ways and spiritual practices.[76] Indigenous religions developed from anthropomorphism and animism philosophies.[77]

The placement of artifacts and materials within an Archaic burial site indicated social differentiation based upon status.[74] There is a continuous record of occupation of S'ólh Téméxw by Indigenous people dating from the early Holocene period, 10,000–9,000 years ago.[78] Archaeological sites at Stave Lake, Coquitlam Lake, Fort Langley and region uncovered early period artifacts. These early inhabitants were highly mobile hunter-gatherers, consisting of about 20 to 50 members of an extended family.[78][verification needed] The Na-Dene people occupied much of the land area of northwest and central North America starting around 8,000 BCE.[79] They were the earliest ancestors of the Athabaskan-speaking peoples, including the Navajo and Apache. They had villages with large multi-family dwellings, used seasonally during the summer, from which they hunted, fished and gathered food supplies for the winter.[80] The Wendat peoples settled into Southern Ontario along the Eramosa River around 8,000–7,000 BCE (10,000–9,000 years ago).[81] They were concentrated between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay. Wendat hunted caribou to survive on the glacier-covered land.[81] Many different First Nations cultures relied upon the buffalo starting by 6,000–5,000 BCE (8,000–7,000 years ago).[81] They hunted buffalo by herding migrating buffalo off cliffs. Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, near Fort Macleod, Alberta, is a hunting grounds that was in use for about 5,000 years.[81]

Photograph of a circular arrangement of rocks on open ground with a body of water in the background
Thule site (Copper Inuit) near the waters of Cambridge Bay (Victoria Island)

By 7,000–5000 BCE (9,000–7,000 years ago) the west coast of Canada saw various cultures who organized themselves around salmon fishing.[81] The Nuu-chah-nulth of Vancouver Island began whaling with advanced long spears at about this time.[81] The Maritime Archaic is one group of North America's Archaic culture of sea-mammal hunters in the subarctic. They prospered from approximately 7,000 BCE–1,500 BCE (9,000–3,500 years ago) along the Atlantic Coast of North America.[82] Their settlements included longhouses and boat-topped temporary or seasonal houses. They engaged in long-distance trade, using as currency white chert, a rock quarried from northern Labrador to Maine.[83] The Pre-Columbian culture, whose members were called Red Paint People, is indigenous to the New England and Atlantic Canada regions of North America. The culture flourished between 3,000 BCE – 1,000 BCE (5,000–3,000 years ago) and was named after their burial ceremonies, which used large quantities of red ochre to cover bodies and grave goods.[84]

The Arctic small tool tradition is a broad cultural entity that developed along the Alaska Peninsula, around Bristol Bay, and on the eastern shores of the Bering Strait around 2,500 BCE (4,500 years ago).[85] These Paleo-Arctic peoples had a highly distinctive toolkit of small blades (microblades) that were pointed at both ends and used as side- or end-barbs on arrows or spears made of other materials, such as bone or antler. Scrapers, engraving tools and adze blades were also included in their toolkits.[85] The Arctic small tool tradition branches off into two cultural variants, including the Pre-Dorset, and the Independence traditions, ancestors of the Thule people, and Inuit displaced these two groups by 1000 CE.[85]: 179–81 

Post-Archaic periods

[edit]

The Old Copper complex societies dating from 3,000 BCE – 500 BCE (5,000–2,500 years ago) are a manifestation of the Woodland culture, and are pre-pottery in nature.[86] Evidence found in the northern Great Lakes regions indicates that they extracted copper from local glacial deposits and used it in its natural form to manufacture tools and implements.[86]

The Woodland cultural period dates from about 1,000 BCE – 1,000 CE, and has locales in Ontario, Quebec, and Maritime regions.[87] The introduction of pottery distinguishes the Woodland culture from the earlier Archaic stage inhabitants. Laurentian people of southern Ontario manufactured the oldest pottery excavated to date in Canada.[76] They created pointed-bottom beakers decorated by a cord marking technique that involved impressing tooth implements into wet clay. Woodland technology included items such as beaver incisor knives, bangles, and chisels. The population practising sedentary agricultural life ways continued to increase on a diet of squash, corn, and bean crops.[76]

The Hopewell tradition is an Indigenous culture that flourished along American rivers from 300 BCE – 500 CE. At its greatest extent, the Hopewell Exchange System networked cultures and societies with the peoples on the Canadian shores of Lake Ontario. Canadian expression of the Hopewellian peoples encompasses the Point Peninsula, Saugeen, and Laurel complexes.[88][89][90]

First Nations

[edit]
Black and white photograph of Skwxwu7mesh Chief George from the village of Senakw with his daughter in traditional regalia.
Chief George from the village of Senakw with his daughter in traditional regalia, c. 1906

First Nations peoples had settled and established trade routes across what is now Canada by 500 BCE – 1,000 CE. Communities developed each with its own culture, customs, and character.[91] In the northwest are the Athapaskan speaking, Slavey, Tłı̨chǫ, Tutchone, and Tlingit. Along the Pacific coast are the Tsimshian; Haida; Coast Salish; Kwakwakaʼwakw; Heiltsuk; Nootka; Nisga'a; Senakw and Gitxsan. In the Plains are the Niisitapi; Káínawa; Tsuutʼina; and Piikáni. In the Northern Woodlands are the Cree and Chipewyan. Around the Great Lakes are the Anishinaabe; Algonquin; Haudenosaunee and Wendat. Along the Atlantic Coast are the Wolastoqiyik, Innu, Abenaki, and Mi'kmaq and formerly the Beothuk.[citation needed]

Many First Nations civilizations[92] established characteristics and hallmarks that included permanent urban settlements or cities,[93] agriculture, civic and monumental architecture, and complex societal hierarchies.[94] These cultures had evolved and changed by the time of the first permanent European arrivals (c. late 15th–early 16th centuries), and have been brought forward through archaeological investigations.[95]

There are indications of contact made before Christopher Columbus between the first peoples and those from other continents. Indigenous people in Canada first interacted with Europeans around 1000 CE, but prolonged contact came after Europeans established permanent settlements in the 17th and 18th centuries.[96] European written accounts generally recorded friendliness of the First Nations, who profited in trade with Europeans.[96] Such trade generally strengthened the more organized political entities such as the Iroquois Confederation.[97] Throughout the 16th century, European fleets made almost annual visits to the eastern shores of Canada to cultivate the fishing opportunities. A sideline industry emerged in the un-organized traffic of furs overseen by the British Indian Department.[98]

Prominent First Nations people include Joe Capilano, who met with King of the United Kingdom, Edward VII, to speak of the need to settle land claims and Ovide Mercredi, a leader at both the Meech Lake Accord constitutional reform discussions and Oka Crisis.[99][100]

Inuit

[edit]

Inuit are the descendants of what anthropologists call the Thule culture, which emerged from western Alaska around 1,000 CE and spread eastward across the Arctic, displacing the Dorset culture (in Inuktitut, the Tuniit). Inuit historically referred to the Tuniit as "giants", who were taller and stronger than the Inuit.[101] Researchers hypothesize that the Dorset culture lacked dogs, larger weapons and other technologies used by the expanding Inuit society.[102] By 1300, Inuit had settled in west Greenland, and finally moved into east Greenland over the following century. The Inuit had trade routes with more southern cultures. Boundary disputes were common and led to aggressive actions.[103]

"black and white image of an Inuit hunter seated in a kayak holding a harpoon"
Inuk in a kayak, c. 1908–1914

Warfare was common among Inuit groups with sufficient population density. Inuit, such as the Nunamiut (Uummarmiut) who inhabited the Mackenzie River delta area, often engaged in common warfare. The Central Arctic Inuit lacked the population density to engage in warfare. In the 13th century, the Thule culture began arriving in Greenland from what is now Canada. Norse accounts are scant. Norse-made items from Inuit campsites in Greenland were obtained by either trade or plunder.[104] One account, Ívar Bárðarson, speaks of "small people" with whom the Norsemen fought.[105] 14th-century accounts relate that a western settlement, one of the two Norse settlements, was taken over by the Skræling.[106]

After the disappearance of the Norse colonies in Greenland, the Inuit had no contact with Europeans for at least a century. By the mid-16th century, Basque fishers were already working the Labrador coast and had established whaling stations on land, such as those excavated at Red Bay.[107] The Inuit appear not to have interfered with their operations, but they did raid the stations in winter for tools, and particularly worked iron, which they adapted to native needs.[108]

Notable among the Inuit are Abraham Ulrikab and family who became a zoo exhibit in Hamburg, Germany, and Tanya Tagaq, a traditional throat singer.[109] Abe Okpik was instrumental in helping Inuit obtain surnames rather than disc numbers and Kiviaq (David Ward) won the legal right to use his single-word Inuktitut name.[110][111]

Métis

[edit]
Black and white photograph of a man with a short moustache and earrings, wearing a fur lined dress jacket, bow tie and fur hat
Mixed-blood fur trader, c. 1870

The Métis are people descended from marriages between Europeans (mainly French)[112] and Cree, Ojibwe, Algonquin, Saulteaux, Menominee, Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and other First Nations.[13] Their history dates to the mid-17th century.[3]

When Europeans first arrived to Canada they relied on Indigenous peoples for fur trading skills and survival. To ensure alliances, relationships between European fur traders and Indigenous women were often consolidated through marriage.[113] The Métis homeland consists of the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, as well as the Northwest Territories (NWT).[114]

Amongst notable Métis people are singer and actor Tom Jackson,[115] Commissioner of the Northwest Territories Tony Whitford, and Louis Riel who led two resistance movements: the Red River Rebellion of 1869–1870 and the North-West Rebellion of 1885, which ended in his trial and subsequent execution.[116][117][118]

The languages inherently Métis are either Métis French or a mixed language called Michif. Michif, Mechif or Métchif is a phonetic spelling of Métif, a variant of Métis.[119] The Métis today predominantly speak English, with French a strong second language, as well as numerous Indigenous tongues. A 19th-century community of the Métis people, the Anglo-Métis, were referred to as Countryborn. They were children of Rupert's Land fur trade typically of Orcadian, Scottish, or English paternal descent and Indigenous maternal descent.[120] Their first languages would have been Indigenous (Cree, Saulteaux, Assiniboine, etc.) and English. Their fathers spoke Gaelic, thus leading to the development of an English dialect referred to as "Bungee".[121][dubiousdiscuss]

S.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 mentions the Métis yet there has long been debate over legally defining the term Métis,[122] but on September 23, 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Métis are a distinct people with significant rights (Powley ruling).[123]

Unlike First Nations people, there has been no distinction between status and non-status Métis;[124] the Métis, their heritage and Indigenous ancestry have often been absorbed and assimilated into their surrounding populations.[125]

Forced assimilation

[edit]

From the late 18th century, European Canadians (and the Canadian government) encouraged assimilation of Indigenous culture into what was referred to as "Canadian culture."[126][127] These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with a series of initiatives that aimed at complete assimilation and subjugation of the Indigenous peoples. These policies, which were made possible by legislation such as the Gradual Civilization Act[128] and the Indian Act,[129] focused on European ideals of Christianity, sedentary living, agriculture, and education.[130]

Christianization

[edit]
Indigenous children working at long desks
Study period at a Roman Catholic Indian Residential School in Fort Resolution, NWT

Missionary work directed at the Indigenous people of Canada had been ongoing since the first missionaries arrived in the 1600s, generally from France, some of whom were martyred (Jesuit saints called the Canadian Martyrs). Christianization as government policy became more systematic with the Indian Act in 1876, which would bring new sanctions for those who did not convert to Christianity. For example, the new laws would prevent non-Christian Indigenous people from testifying or having their cases heard in court, and ban alcohol consumption.[131] When the Indian Act was amended in 1884, traditional religious and social practices, such as the Potlatch, would be banned, and further amendments in 1920 would prevent "status Indians" (as defined in the Act) from wearing traditional dress or performing traditional dances in an attempt to stop all non-Christian practices.[131]

Sedentary living, reserves, and "gradual civilization"

[edit]

Another focus of the Canadian government was to make the Indigenous groups of Canada sedentary, as they thought that this would make them easier to assimilate. In the 19th century, the government began to support the creation of model farming villages, which were meant to encourage non-sedentary Indigenous groups to settle in an area and begin to cultivate agriculture.[132] When most of these model farming villages failed,[132] the government turned instead to the creation of Indian reserves with the Indian Act of 1876.[129] With the creation of these reserves came many restricting laws, such as further bans on all intoxicants, restrictions on eligibility to vote in band elections, decreased hunting and fishing areas, and inability for status Indians to visit other groups on their reserves.[129] Farming was still seen as an important practice for assimilation on reserves; however, by the late 19th century the government had instituted restrictive policies here too, such as the Peasant Farm Policy, which restricted reserve farmers largely to the use of hand tools.[133] This was implemented largely to limit the competitiveness of First Nations farming.[134]

Through the Gradual Civilization Act in 1857, the government would encourage Indians (i.e., First Nations) to enfranchise – to remove all legal distinctions between [Indians] and Her Majesty's other Canadian Subjects.[128] If an Indigenous chose to enfranchise, it would strip them and their family of Aboriginal title, with the idea that they would become "less savage" and "more civilized," thus become assimilated into Canadian society.[135] However, they were often still defined as non-citizens by Europeans, and those few who did enfranchise were often met with disappointment.[135]

Residential system

[edit]
St. Paul's Indian Industrial School, Middlechurch, Manitoba, 1901

The final government strategy of assimilation, made possible by the Indian Act was the Canadian residential school system:

Of all the initiatives that were undertaken in the first century of Confederation, none was more ambitious or central to the civilizing strategy of the Department, to its goal of assimilation than the residential school system… it was the residential school experience that would lead children most effectively out of their "savage" communities into "higher civilization" and "full citizenship."[136]

Beginning in 1874 and lasting until 1996, the Canadian government, in partnership with the dominant Christian Churches, ran 130 residential boarding schools across Canada for Indigenous children. Sometimes school attendance was forced.[137] While the schools provided some education, they were plagued by under-funding, disease, and abuse.[138]

According to some scholars, the Canadian government's laws and policies, including the residential school system, that encouraged or required Indigenous peoples to assimilate into a Eurocentric society, violated the United Nations Genocide Convention that Canada signed in 1949 and passed through Parliament in 1952. Therefore, these scholars believe that Canada could be tried in international court for genocide.[139] A legal case resulted in settlement of CA$2 billion in 2006 and the 2008 establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which confirmed the injurious effect on children of this system and turmoil created between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples.[140] In 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of the Canadian government and its citizens for the residential school system.[141]

Politics, law, and legislation

[edit]

Indigenous law vs. Aboriginal law

[edit]

The term Canadian Indigenous law refers to Indigenous peoples' own legal systems. This includes the laws and legal processes developed by Indigenous groups to govern their relationships, manage their natural resources, and manage conflicts.[142] Indigenous law is developed from a variety of sources and institutions, which differ across legal traditions.[143] Canadian Aboriginal law is the area of law related to the Canadian government's relationship with the Indigenous peoples. Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal parliament exclusive power to legislate in matters related to Aboriginals, which includes groups governed by the Indian Act, different Numbered Treaties and outside of those acts.[144]

Treaties

[edit]
Photograph showing the two sides of a round silver medal, showing the profile of Queen Victoria on one side and the inscription "Victoria Regina", with the other side having a depiction of a man in European garb shaking hands with a man in historical First Nation clothing with the inscription "Indian Treaty 187"
The Indian Chiefs Medal, presented to commemorate Treaties 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, bearing the image of Queen Victoria

The Monarchy of Canada and the Indigenous peoples of Canada began interactions in North America during the European colonization period. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized Indigenous title and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764 bound the Crown and the Indigenous peoples of the Great Lakes basin together in a familial relationship, a relationship that exists to this day, exemplified by First Nations attendance at the coronation of King Charles III.[145] Post-Confederation Canada adopted a paternalistic approach and imposed an approach as though the nation-to-nation relationship did not exist, administering relations solely under Canadian law.[citation needed]

After Canada's acquisition of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory in 1870, the eleven Numbered Treaties were imposed on the First Nations from 1871 to 1921. These treaties are agreements with the Crown administered by Canadian Aboriginal law and overseen by the Minister of Crown–Indigenous Relations.[146]

Treaty rights would be recognized and incorporated into the 1982 Constitution. Many agreements signed before the Confederation of Canada are recognized in Canadian law, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties, the Robinson Treaties, the Douglas Treaties, and many others, although many First Nations still have no treaty with the Crown recognizing their title, such as the Mikmaq, the Anishnaabe and several northern British Columbia nations.[citation needed]

For many years, Canada did not negotiate with First Nations to address their aboriginal title. Canadian court judgments and political pressure led to a change in ways following the Canadian Centennial year. The first treaty implemented under the new framework was the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1970 between the Cree and Quebec. This was followed by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in 1984 that led to the creation of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.[147] The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement of 1993 lead to the creation of the Inuit-majority territory of Nunavut later that decade. The Canadian Crown continues to sign new treaties with Indigenous peoples, notably though the British Columbia Treaty Process.[148]

According to the First Nations–Federal Crown Political Accord, "cooperation will be a cornerstone for partnership between Canada and First Nations, wherein Canada is the short-form reference to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.[33] The Supreme Court of Canada argued that treaties "served to reconcile pre-existing Indigenous sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty, and to define Aboriginal rights."[33] First Nations interpreted agreements covered in Treaty 8 to last "as long as the sun shines, grass grows and rivers flow."[149] However, the Canadian government has frequently breached the Crown's treaty obligations over the years, and tries to address these issues by negotiating specific land claim.[150]

Indian Act

[edit]
Colour photograph of former federal Indian affairs minister David Crombie speaking to reporters on the floor of the 1983 Progressive Conservative leadership convention
Former federal Indian affairs minister David Crombie was responsible for Bill C-31.

The Indian Act is Canadian law that dates from 1876. The Act replaced pre-Confederation Canadian laws, and was intended to administer the Indigenous people, and define Canadian interactions. Successive Canadian governments used its powers to impose conditions on the First Nations, and guide their integration into Canada. Today still, the Indian Act indicates how reserves and bands can operate and defines who is recognized as an "Indian."[151] There have been many updates to this law since then, allowing Canadian citizenship and voting rights among others.[citation needed]

In 1985, the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-31, An Act to Amend the Indian Act. Because of a constitutional requirement, the bill took effect on April 17, 1985.[152]

  • It ends discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act, especially those that discriminated against women.[152]
  • It changes the meaning of status and for the first time allows for limited reinstatement of Indians who were denied or lost status or band membership.[152]
  • It allows bands to define their own membership rules.[152]

Those people accepted into band membership under band rules may not be status Indians. C-31 clarified that various sections of the Indian Act apply to band members. The sections under debate concern community life and land holdings. Sections pertaining to Indians (First Nations peoples) as individuals (in this case, wills and taxation of personal property) were not included.[152]

Royal Commission

[edit]
Map with areas labelled where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada took part in outreach and statement gathering events over the impact of Canadian residential schools with the Indigenous peoples of Canada

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was a royal commission undertaken by the Government of Canada in 1991 to address issues of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.[153] It assessed past government policies toward Indigenous people, such as residential schools, and provided policy recommendations to the government.[154] The Commission issued its final report in November 1996. The five-volume, 4,000-page report covered a vast range of issues; its 440 recommendations called for sweeping changes to the interaction between Indigenous, non-Indigenous people and the governments in Canada.[153] The report "set out a 20-year agenda for change."[155]

Health policy

[edit]

In 1995, the Government of Canada announced the Aboriginal Right to Self-Government Policy.[156] This policy recognizes that First Nations and Inuit have the constitutional right to shape their own forms of government to suit their particular historical, cultural, political and economic circumstances. The Indian Health Transfer Policy provided a framework for the assumption of control of health services by Indigenous peoples, and set forth a developmental approach to transfer centred on self-determination in health.[157][158] Through this process, the decision to enter transfer discussions with Health Canada rests with each community. Once involved in transfer, communities can take control of health programme responsibilities at a pace determined by their individual circumstances and health management capabilities.[159] The National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO) incorporated in 2000, was an Indigenous -designed and-controlled not-for-profit body in Canada that worked to influence and advance the health and well-being of Indigenous Peoples.[160] Its funding was discontinued in 2012.[citation needed]

Political organization

[edit]

First Nations and Inuit organizations ranged in size from band societies of a few people to multi-nation confederacies like the Iroquois. First Nations leaders from across the country formed the Assembly of First Nations, which began as the National Indian Brotherhood in 1968.[161] Métis and Inuit are represented nationally by the Métis National Council and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami respectively.[citation needed]

Today's political organizations have resulted from interaction with European-style methods of government through the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians. Indigenous political organizations throughout Canada vary in political standing, viewpoints, and reasons for forming.[162] First Nations, Métis and Inuit negotiate with the Government of Canada through Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada in all affairs concerning land, entitlement, and rights.[161] The First Nation groups that operate independently do not belong to these groups.[161]

Culture

[edit]
Black and white photo of a woman kneeling on the ground making a snowshoe. She is wearing a plaid shirt and white dress locking down at the snowshoe. Around her is four frames of snowshoe to be made leaning on a tippy,
Traditional snowshoe maker, c. 1900

Countless Indigenous words, inventions and games have become an everyday part of Canadian language and use. The canoe, snowshoes, the toboggan, lacrosse, tug of war, maple syrup and tobacco are just a few of the products, inventions and games.[163] Some of the words include the barbecue, caribou, chipmunk, woodchuck, hammock, skunk, and moose.[164]

Many places in Canada, both natural features and human habitations, use Indigenous names. The word Canada itself derives from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word meaning 'village' or 'settlement'.[165] The province of Saskatchewan derives its name from the Saskatchewan River, which in the Cree language is called Kisiskatchewani Sipi, meaning 'swift-flowing river'.[166] Ottawa, the name of Canada's capital city, comes from the Algonquin language term adawe, meaning 'to trade'.[166]

Modern youth groups, such as Scouts Canada and the Girl Guides of Canada, include programs based largely on Indigenous lore, arts and crafts, character building and outdoor camp craft and living.[167]

Indigenous cultural areas depend upon their ancestors' primary lifeway, or occupation, at the time of European contact. These culture areas correspond closely with physical and ecological regions of Canada.[168] The Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast were centred around ocean and river fishing; in the interior of British Columbia, hunter-gatherer and river fishing. In both of these areas, the salmon was of chief importance. For the people of the plains, bison hunting was the primary activity. In the subarctic forest, other species such as the moose were more important. For peoples near the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, shifting agriculture was practised, including the raising of maize, beans, and squash.[7][168] While for Inuit, hunting was the primary source of food with seals the primary component of their diet.[169] The caribou, fish, other marine mammals and to a lesser extent plants, berries and seaweed are part of the Inuit diet. One of the most noticeable symbols of Inuit culture, the inuksuk is the emblem of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. Inuksuit are rock sculptures made by stacking stones; in the shape of a human figure, they are called inunnguaq.[170]

Colour photograph of Tsuu T'ina children in traditional costume on horseback at a Stampede Parade in front of an audience
Tsuu T'ina children at a parade

Indian reserves, established in Canadian law by treaties such as Treaty 7, are lands of First Nations recognized by non-Indigenous governments.[171] Some reserves are within cities, such as the Opawikoscikan Reserve in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Wendake in Quebec City or Enoch Cree Nation 135 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region. There are more reserves in Canada than there are First Nations, which were ceded multiple reserves by treaty.[172] Indigenous people currently work in a variety of occupations and may live outside their ancestral homes. The traditional cultures of their ancestors, shaped by nature, still exert a strong influence on them, from spirituality to political attitudes.[7][168] National Indigenous Peoples Day is a day of recognition of the cultures and contributions of the First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. The day was first celebrated in 1996, after it was proclaimed that year, by then Governor General of Canada, Roméo LeBlanc, to be celebrated on June 21 annually.[16] Most provincial jurisdictions do not recognize it as a statutory holiday.[16]

Languages

[edit]

There are thirteen Indigenous language groups, eleven oral and two sign, in Canada, made up of more than sixty-five distinct dialects.[173] Of these, only Cree, Inuktitut, and Ojibwe have a large enough population of fluent speakers to be considered viable to survive in the long term.[174] Two of Canada's territories give official status to native languages. In Nunavut, Inuktut, also known as the Inuit language, (Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun) are official languages alongside the national languages of English and French.[175][176][177]

In the Northwest Territories, the Official Languages Act declares that there are 11 different languages: Chipewyan, Cree, English, French, Gwichʼin, Inuinnaqtun, Inuktitut, Inuvialuktun, North Slavey, South Slavey, and Tłįchǫ.[178] Besides English and French, these languages are not vehicular in government; official status entitles citizens to receive services in them on request and to deal with the government in them.[174]

Indigenous language No. of speakers Mother tongue Home language
Cree 99,950 78,855 47,190
Inuktitut 35,690 32,010 25,290
Ojibway 32,460 24,190 11,115
Montagnais-Naskapi (Innu) 11,815 10,970 9,720
Dene 11,130 9,750 7,490
Oji-Cree (Anihshininiimowin) 12,605 11,690 8,480
Mi'kmaq 8,750 7,365 3,985
Siouan languages (Dakota/Sioux) 6,495 5,585 3,780
Atikamekw 5,645 5,245 4,745
Blackfoot 4,915 3,085 1,575
For a complete list see: Spoken languages of Canada
Source': Statistics Canada, 2006 Census Profile of Federal Electoral Districts (2003 Representation Order): Language, Mobility and Migration and Immigration and Citizenship Ottawa, 2007, pp. 2, 6, 10.

Visual art

[edit]
A colour photograph of a young girl in a traditional shawl between two adults
A young Métis girl wearing a traditional shawl

Indigenous peoples were producing art for thousands of years before the arrival of European settler colonists and the eventual establishment of Canada as a nation state. Like the peoples who produced them, Indigenous art traditions spanned territories across North America. Indigenous art traditions are organized by art historians according to cultural, linguistic or regional groups: Northwest Coast, Plateau, Plains, Eastern Woodlands, Subarctic, and Arctic.[179]

Art traditions vary enormously amongst and within these diverse groups. Indigenous art with a focus on portability and the body is distinguished from European traditions and its focus on architecture. Indigenous visual art may be used in conjunction with other arts. Among Inuit the masks and rattles of the angakkuq (shaman) are used ceremoniously in dance, storytelling and music.[179] Artworks preserved in museum collections date from the period after European contact and show evidence of the creative adoption and adaptation of European trade goods such as metal and glass beads.[180] The distinct Métis cultures that have arisen from inter-cultural relationships with Europeans contribute culturally hybrid art forms.[181] During the 19th and the first half of the 20th century the Canadian government pursued an active policy of forced and cultural assimilation toward Indigenous peoples. The Indian Act banned manifestations of the Sun Dance, the Potlatch, and works of art depicting them.[182]

Female dancer in costume performing in front of an audience
Dancer at Drum Dance Festival, Gjoa Haven, Nunavut

It was not until the 1950s and 1960s that Indigenous artists such as Mungo Martin, Bill Reid and Norval Morrisseau began to publicly renew and re-invent Indigenous art traditions. Currently, there are Indigenous artists practising in all media in Canada and two Indigenous artists, Edward Poitras and Rebecca Belmore, have represented Canada at the Venice Biennale in 1995 and 2005 respectively.[179]

Music

[edit]

Indigenous peoples in Canada encompass diverse ethnic groups with their individual musical traditions. Music is usually social (public) or ceremonial (private). Public, social music may be dance music accompanied by rattles and drums. Private, ceremonial music includes vocal songs with accompaniment on percussion, used to mark occasions like Midewivin ceremonies and Sun Dances.[citation needed]

Traditionally, Indigenous peoples used the materials at hand to make their instruments for centuries before Europeans immigrated to Canada.[183] First Nations people made gourds and animal horns into rattles, which were elaborately carved and brightly painted.[184] In woodland areas, they made horns of birch bark and drumsticks of carved antlers and wood. Traditional percussion instruments such as drums were generally made of carved wood and animal hides. These musical instruments provide the background for songs, and songs the background for dances. Traditional First Nations people consider song and dance to be sacred. For years after Europeans came to Canada, First Nations people were forbidden to practice their ceremonies.[182][183]

Demography

[edit]
Percent reporting indigenous identity by census division as of the 2021 census.

There are three (First Nations,[3] Inuit[4] and Métis[5]) distinctive groups of Indigenous peoples that are recognized in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, sections 25 and 35.[18] Under the Employment Equity Act, Indigenous people are a designated group along with women, visible minorities, and persons with disabilities;[185] as such, they are neither a visible minority under the Act or in the view of Statistics Canada.[186]

The 2021 Census data reveals that there are over 1.8 million Indigenous people in Canada, comprising 5.0% of the overall population and a slight increase from 4.9% in 2016.[187]

The growth of the Indigenous population has slowed compared to previous years. The population grew by 18.9% between 2011 to 2016, while the growth from 2016 to 2021 was only 9.4%. For the first time, the Census recorded more than 1 million First Nations people living in Canada. The Indigenous population continues to grow at a faster rate than the non-Indigenous population but at a reduced speed. The Indigenous population is projected to reach between 2.5 million and 3.2 million in the next 20 years.[187]

The First Nations population overall increased by 9.7% from 2016 to 2021. However, Status First Nations saw a slower growth of 4.1%, compared to those without Registered Indian status, which grew by 27.2%. The Métis population rose by 6.3%, and the Inuit population grew by 8.5%. More than half of First Nations people (55. 5%) lived in Western Canada as of 2021. Ontario had the highest number of First Nations people, with 251,030 (about 23.9%) of the total First Nations population. Approximately 11.1% of First Nations people lived in Quebec, with 7.6% in Atlantic Canada and 1.9% in the territories.[187]

The 2021 Census showed nearly three in four Canadians lived in urban areas, with 801,045 Indigenous people living in large urban centers. This is an increase of 12.5% from 2016, signifying that Indigenous people were more likely to reside in these areas compared to before.[187]

Moreover, the Indigenous population is generally younger than the non-Indigenous population. In 2021, the average age of Indigenous people was 33.6 years, compared to 41.8 years for non-Indigenous people. The Inuit population was the youngest, averaging 28.9 years, followed by First Nations at 32.5 years and Métis at 35.9 years. In total, there were 459,215 Indigenous children aged 14 years and younger, making up 25.4% of the Indigenous population, while only 16.0% of the non-Indigenous population fell into this age category.[187]

In the 20th century, the Indigenous population of Canada increased tenfold.[188] Between 1900 and 1950 the population grew by 29%. After the 1960's the infant mortality level on reserves dropped dramatically.[189][190] Since the 1980's, the number of First Nations babies more than doubled and currently almost half of the First Nations population is under the age of 25.[188][190]

Indigenous people assert that their sovereign rights are valid, pointing to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is mentioned in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, Section 25, the British North America Acts and the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (to which Canada is a signatory) in support of this claim.[191][192]

Religion

[edit]
Indigenous Canadian demography by religion
Religious group 2021[193][c] 2001[194][d]
Pop. % Pop. %
Christianity 950,080 46.14% 738,890 73.82%
Islam 2,245 0.11% 635 0.06%
Irreligion 983,070 47.74% 232,215 23.2%
Judaism 1,620 0.08% 620 0.06%
Buddhism 2,405 0.12% 1,215 0.12%
Hinduism 240 0.01% 185 0.02%
Indigenous spirituality 91,495 4.44% 1,145 0.11%
Sikhism 135 0.01% 115 0.01%
Other 27,995 1.36% 29,170 2.91%
Total Indigenous Canadian population 2,059,285 100% 1,000,890 100%
Indigenous Canadian demography by Christian sects
Religious group 2021[193][c] 2001[194][d]
Pop. % Pop. %
Catholic 582,500 61.31% 424,100 57.65%
Orthodox 2,015 0.11% 885 0.12%
Protestant 250,260 26.34% 277,630 37.74%
Other Christian 115,305 12.14% 33,015 4.49%
Total Indigenous Canadian christian population 950,080 100% 735,630 100%

Geographical distribution

[edit]

Ethnographers commonly classify Indigenous peoples of the Americas in the United States and Canada into ten geographical regions, cultural areas, with shared cultural traits.[195] The Canadian regions are:

Urban population

[edit]

Across Canada, 56% of Indigenous peoples live in urban areas. The urban Indigenous population is the fastest-growing population segment in Canada.[196]

Urban Indigenous Population (2001−2021)
Metro area Province 2021[1] 2011[197] 2001[198]
Pop. % Pop. % Pop. %
Winnipeg Manitoba 102,075 12.45% 78,415 10.97% 55,755 8.43%
Edmonton Alberta 87,600 6.27% 61,770 5.42% 40,930 4.42%
Vancouver British Columbia 63,340 2.43% 52,375 2.3% 36,860 1.87%
Calgary Alberta 48,625 3.32% 33,375 2.78% 21,915 2.32%
Ottawa-Gatineau Ontario-Quebec 46,540 3.18% 30,570 2.51% 13,485 1.28%
Montreal Quebec 46,085 1.1% 26,285 0.7% 11,085 0.33%
Toronto Ontario 44,635 0.73% 36,990 0.67% 20,300 0.44%
Saskatoon Saskatchewan 34,890 11.2% 23,890 9.32% 20,275 9.11%
Regina Saskatchewan 24,520 10.01% 19,785 9.55% 15,685 8.25%
Victoria British Columbia 19,455 5.01% 14,200 4.22% 8,695 2.83%
Greater Sudbury Ontario 19,005 11.34% 13,410 8.47% 7,385 4.8%
Halifax Nova Scotia 18,850 4.09% 9,655 2.51% 3,525 0.99%
Prince Albert Saskatchewan 18,135 41.86% 15,780 38.53% 11,640 29.18%
Thunder Bay Ontario 16,935 14% 11,675 9.8% 8,200 6.81%
Hamilton Ontario 15,420 1.99% 11,980 1.69% 7,270 1.11%
Quebec Quebec 14,725 1.8% 6,450 0.86% 4,130 0.61%
London Ontario 13,675 2.55% 8,475 1.81% 5,640 1.32%
Kelowna British Columbia 13,420 6.14% 8,255 4.68% 3,950 2.71%
Prince George British Columbia 13,100 14.9% 9,930 11.98% 7,980 9.43%
St. Catharines - Niagara Ontario 13,080 3.07% 8,850 2.3% 4,970 1.34%
Kamloops British Columbia 12,255 11.09% 8,265 8.56% 5,470 6.36%
Abbotsford-Mission British Columbia 10,525 5.48% 6,970 4.18% 4,215 2.91%
Chilliwack British Columbia 10,515 9.43% 8,340 9.24% 4,015 5.81%
Oshawa Ontario 10,045 2.44% 6,095 1.73% 3,020 1.03%

Peoples

[edit]

Canada census 2021.[199]

  • The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating North American Indigenous origins, not otherwise specified (e.g., "Aboriginal," "Indigenous").
  • The abbreviation "n.i.e." means "not included elsewhere." This category includes specific Anishinaabe origins, not included elsewhere (e.g., "Mississauga," "Nipissing").
Single and multiple
Indigenous ancestry responses (4A)4
Language group Indigenous ancestry responses Province/Territory[200]
Total
(Single or multiple)
Single only
Total North American Indigenous origins 2,204,475 2,082,515
North American Indigenous n.o.s. 194,840 193,105
First Nations (North American Indian) origins 1,426,950 1,307,280
First Nations (North American Indian) n.o.s. 632,340 613,125
Abenaki Algonquian - Eastern Algonquian 18,420 16,310 Quebec 89%
Anishinaabe origins Algonquian - Ojibwe-Potawatomi 189,710 152,640 Ontario 46.8%, Manitoba 19.7%, Quebec 17.4%
Apache Athabaskan - Southern Athabascan 1,265 995
Atikamekw Algonquian - Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi 8,400 7,630 Quebec 98.4%
Blackfoot origins Algonquian - Siksika 23,200 18,540 Alberta 65.6%, Ontario 15.5%
Cherokee Iroquoian - Cherokee 10,825 9,120
Cheyenne Algonquian - Cheyenne 565 360
Choctaw Muskogean 685 485
Cree origins Algonquian - Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi 250,330 198,655 Alberta 28%, Saskatchewan 24.4%, Manitoba 17.3%
Delaware (Lenape) Algonquian - Eastern Algonquian 1,180 810 Ontario 84.3%
Dene origins Athabaskan - Northern Athabaskan languages 47,565 33,960 British Columbia 29.2%, Northwest Territories 20.4%, Saskatchewan 18.5%, Alberta 17.9%
Gitxsan Tsimshianic 5,075 3,515 British Columbia 95.2%
Haida Haida 4,725 3,680 British Columbia 86.1%
Haisla Wakashan - Northern 1,495 890 British Columbia 90.6%
Heiltsuk Wakashan - Northern 1,620 1,065 British Columbia 97.8%
Huron (Wendat) Iroquoian - Northern 15,915 12,460 Quebec 80.1%
Innu origins Algonquian - Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi 28,960 25,155 Quebec 84.8%
Iroquoian (Haudenosaunee) origins Iroquoian - Northern 55,200 45,495 Ontario 53.5%, Quebec 28.3%
Ktunaxa (Kutenai) Kutenai 810 565 British Columbia 82.1%
Kwakwaka'wakw origins Wakashan - Northern 2,720 1,930 British Columbia 88.8%
Maliseet Algonquian - Eastern Algonquian 7,220 6,180 Quebec 42.5%, New Brunswick 41.3%
Mi'kmaq origins Algonquian - Eastern Algonquian 122,350 111,890 Newfoundland and Labrador 21.3%, Ontario 18.8%, Nova Scotia 18.1%, Quebec 16.6%
Navajo Athabaskan - Southern Athabascan 755 440
Nisga'a Tsimshianic 5,000 3,360 British Columbia 95.6%
Nuu-chah-nulth origins Wakashan - Southern 2,900 2,225 British Columbia 93.8%
Nuxalk Salishan - Nuxalk 1,055 615 British Columbia 98.6%
Passamaquoddy Algonquian - Eastern Algonquian 560 435 New Brunswick 66.1%
Salish origins Salishan 25,685 20,260 British Columbia 87.0%
Salish n.o. Salishan 2,225 1,510
Coast Salish origins Coast Salish 13,040 10,290
Interior Salish origins Interior Salish 11,310 8,465
Siouan origins Siouan 16,570 8,820 Saskatchewan 31.9%, Manitoba 25.4%, Alberta 21.8%
Tsimshian Tsimshianic 4,945 3,110 British Columbia 94.2%
Wuikinuxv Wakashan - Northern 195 70 British Columbia 86.7%
First Nations (North American Indian) origins n.i.e.35 3,605 2,480
Inuit origins 82,010 73,995 Nunavut 37.6%, Quebec 22.0%, Newfoundland and Labrador 12.5%
Métis 560,335 508,135
Non-Indigenous origins 35,343,280 1,155,115

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Indigenous peoples in Canada comprise the First Nations, , and , the original human groups whose ancestors migrated from Asia across and along coastal routes to beginning approximately 15,000 years ago, establishing diverse , , and agricultural societies across the continent's northern territories long before European contact in the . Legally defined as Aboriginal peoples under section 35 of the , which affirms their existing treaty and other rights, these groups numbered around 1.8 million people—or 5% of Canada's total population—in the 2021 , with First Nations accounting for over 1 million, for about 624,000, and for roughly 70,000, distributed across more than 600 reserves, northern settlements, and urban areas. Pre-contact Indigenous societies exhibited wide variation, from the nomadic adapted to conditions to woodland nations engaging in extensive networks, mound-building, and intertribal warfare, with estimates for the ranging from 500,000 to 2 million prior to the catastrophic declines—often 80-90%—caused by Eurasian diseases following initial European encounters. European colonization introduced alliances, economies, and formal treaties (such as the 11 from 1871-1921), which ceded vast lands in exchange for reserves, annuities, and hunting rights, but also imposed the of 1876, restricting autonomy and enforcing assimilation policies like residential schools that separated children from families and contributed to cultural erosion and elevated mortality rates. In contemporary Canada, Indigenous peoples pursue self-government through over 25 agreements, modern land claims settlements, and litigation over unceded territories, amid persistent socioeconomic disparities including employment rates 10-20 percentage points below the national average on many reserves, higher incidences of inadequate (three times the non-Indigenous rate), and elevated risks of and involvement in government care systems, though urban Indigenous populations and sectors like industries show improving outcomes. These dynamics reflect causal factors such as geographic isolation, treaty dependencies, and historical disruptions, balanced against cultural revitalization efforts and contributions to national sectors and legal precedents affirming .

Definitions and Terminology

Classifications: First Nations, Inuit, Métis

The of Canada are classified into three distinct groups under section 35 of the , which recognizes the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, , and peoples. This constitutional framework affirms their unique histories, cultures, and legal statuses, separate from one another, while encompassing over 600 First Nations communities, regions spanning the , and settlements primarily in the Prairies. According to the 2021 Census, approximately 1.8 million people self-identified as Indigenous, comprising 5% of Canada's , with the majority aligning to one of these groups: First Nations (single identity: 1,048,405), (single identity: 624,220), and (single identity: 65,290), plus 69,335 reporting multiple identities. First Nations refers to the diverse Indigenous nations neither Inuit nor Métis, historically termed "Indians" in Canadian law but now self-referenced as First Nations since the 1980s to emphasize sovereignty and pre-colonial status. This group includes both status Indians (registered under the , with rights to reserves and federal services) and non-status Indians, organized into over 630 bands across 11 and unceded territories, speaking more than 50 languages from Algonquian, Iroquoian, and other families. Their classification stems from pre-contact origins in and temperate regions, distinct from Arctic adaptations, and is legally tied to treaty obligations and the 's provisions for band governance and land holdings totaling about 0.2% of Canada's land base. Inuit denotes the Indigenous peoples of the and , inhabiting (regions in , , , and the ), with cultures evolved for marine hunting, construction, and dogsled travel, speaking of the Eskimo-Aleut family. Excluded from the , Inuit rights derive from comprehensive land claims like the 1993 Nunavut Agreement, which established over 350,000 square kilometers, reflecting their distinct non-southern ecology and post-contact avoidance of "Indian" classification to preserve Arctic-specific identity. Their population concentration in northern territories (over 50,000 in alone) underscores geographic separation from other groups. Métis constitutes a post-contact Indigenous nation formed from unions between Indigenous women (primarily , , or ) and European men (often French or Scottish fur traders) in the 18th and 19th centuries, developing a shared identity through Red River cart brigades, dancing, sashes, and language blending French and elements. Legally affirmed as a distinct rights-holding people by the in R. v. Powley (2003) for harvesting rights and Daniels v. (2016) for federal jurisdiction, Métis differ from First Nations by rejecting assimilation into either parent ancestry, instead claiming collective nationhood via tracing to historic western Métis communities like the Manitoba Métis Federation. Their population surged in self-reporting post-recognition, concentrated in , , and , but excludes generalized mixed-ancestry individuals lacking this specific cultural continuity.

Historical and Contemporary Usage

The term "Indian" originated from Columbus's erroneous belief in that he had reached the Indies, and was applied by European explorers and settlers to the original inhabitants of the Americas, including those in what is now . This persisted in legal contexts, such as the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which referred to "Nations or Tribes of Indians," and was formalized in the of 1876, which defined "Indian" for status, registration, and governance purposes under federal jurisdiction. The Act's definitions emphasized patrilineal descent and government control, excluding many mixed-ancestry individuals and women who married non-status men, reflecting assimilationist policies rather than self-identification. For peoples of mixed European and Indigenous ancestry, particularly from French fur trade unions in the 18th and 19th centuries, the term emerged, deriving from the French word for "mixed." It gained legal recognition in the Manitoba Act of 1870, which provided land scrip to heads of families in the Red River region, distinguishing them from "Indians" under treaty systems. Historically, "Half-breed" was used interchangeably in documents for similar groups, but Métis identity solidified around distinct communities like those led by , emphasizing shared culture, language (), and political nationhood rather than mere genealogy. Inuit were commonly called until the mid-20th century, a term possibly derived from Algonquian words meaning "eaters of raw meat," which many Inuit view as derogatory; the Inuit Circumpolar Conference adopted (meaning "the people" in ) in 1977 to assert self-definition across Arctic regions. In the 1970s, amid rising Indigenous activism and constitutional negotiations, "First Nations" entered common usage to describe Aboriginal peoples neither nor , replacing "Indian" or "band" to emphasize and pre-colonial nationhood over colonial labels. This shift aligned with organizations like the Union of Indian Chiefs, which promoted the term in the 1980s, though it lacks a strict legal definition and is often pluralized to respect over 600 distinct nations. The , entrenched "aboriginal peoples of " (defined to include "Indian, and peoples") in Section 35, protecting existing rights while using "Aboriginal" as a collective legal umbrella. Contemporary usage favors "Indigenous peoples" as a broad, internationally aligned term, influenced by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), which Canada endorsed in 2010 and legislated in 2021. The federal government accelerated this in 2015, renaming the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau referenced "Indigenous" prominently in policy speeches that year. Media outlets like CBC followed suit in 2016, shifting from "Aboriginal" to "Indigenous" for neutrality and global consistency. However, "Aboriginal" retains constitutional force, and many Indigenous individuals and communities prioritize specific ethno-linguistic identifiers (e.g., Anishinaabe, Dene) over pan-Indigenous terms, viewing the latter as potentially homogenizing diverse cultures and histories. Official guidelines emphasize context and self-identification, noting that terms evolve through Indigenous-led reclamation rather than unilateral imposition.

Pre-Contact Societies

Archaeological Evidence and Periods

Archaeological evidence indicates human occupation in what is now Canada began following the , with the earliest widely accepted sites dating to approximately 11,000 years (). The Paleo-Indian period, spanning roughly 11,500 to 9,500 years ago, is characterized by fluted points associated with of such as and . Sites like Debert in , dated between 10,600 and 11,000 , yielded stone tools and hearths indicating seasonal camps focused on caribou hunting. In , the Parkhill site represents the earliest firmly dated Paleo-Indian habitation, with artifact clusters including fluted points linked to 10,500 . Evidence of extends into southern Canada, including points used to hunt extinct camels around 12,000 in . The Archaic period followed, from about 9,500 to 2,800 years ago, marked by adaptation to warming climates, diverse foraging economies, and ground stone tools. sites along Labrador's coast, dated 7,500 to 3,500 , show reliance on marine resources like seals and , with evidence of long-distance trade in ramah chert. In southern regions, Archaic peoples exploited varied environments, transitioning from specialized to broader subsistence strategies including small game and plant gathering. The , beginning around 2,800 years ago and extending to European contact, introduced , burial mounds, and in some areas. Early Woodland innovations included ceramic vessels, while Middle Woodland phases show influences from the Hopewell Interaction Sphere, with pipe fragments and exotic materials indicating networks across the . In , this era reflects continuity in lifeways but with increased and ritual complexity. In the Arctic, distinct sequences include the (circa 2,500 BP to 1,000 BP), known for soapstone lamps, heads, and semi-subterranean houses adapted to . The culture, ancestors of modern , emerged around 1,000 BP, introducing umiak boats, dog traction, and bow-and-arrow technology, rapidly expanding across the region and supplanting Dorset populations. Sites like those in reveal Thule winter villages with whalebone structures, reflecting economies. These periods highlight regional adaptations to post-glacial environments, with southern sequences emphasizing terrestrial and lacustrine resources and northern ones marine mammals.

Social Organization, Warfare, and Economies

Pre-contact indigenous societies in the territory of modern exhibited diverse social organizations shaped by environmental and cultural factors. In the Northeast, Iroquoian-speaking groups such as the Haudenosaunee formed a confederacy, traditionally dated to around 1142 CE based on oral histories referencing a , though some archaeological estimates place its consolidation in the ; this alliance united five nations under a council of sachems selected matrilineally, with descent traced through clans emphasizing kinship ties and . On the , societies like the Kwakwaka’wakw were highly stratified, featuring hereditary elites, commoners, and slaves, with ranked kin groups owning specific names, territories, and privileges enforced through ceremonies. Plains groups, including and Niitsitapi, organized into kinship-based bands with flexible leadership by chiefs selected for wisdom and prowess, often operating through councils rather than rigid hierarchies. Among peoples, totemic clans structured patrilineal leadership, with civil chiefs guiding communities via consensus in pre-contact band systems. Warfare was a prominent feature across many regions, evidenced by archaeological findings such as timber palisades up to 10 meters high surrounding Huron, Neutral, , and villages by 1000 CE, later evolving into multi-layered defenses with logs up to 24 inches in diameter by the 1500s. In the Northeast, Iroquoian " wars" aimed to capture enemies for to replace deceased kin or for , driven by , prestige, and control over resources and trade routes; captives were integrated or executed based on community needs. Plains warfare emphasized individual bravery through ""—touching enemies without killing—alongside raids for horses, goods, or , often ritualized with low casualties in formal battles but escalating in ambushes. On the , groups in the Canyon constructed rock fortifications dating to pre-contact periods, indicating defensive warfare tied to territorial disputes and slave raids by groups like the Haida. Tactics generally involved guerrilla-style hit-and-run raids, night attacks, and terrain exploitation, with and ambushes documented in ethnohistorical accounts predating sustained European influence. Economies were adaptive to local ecologies, universally incorporating , , and gathering, with regional specializations. Northeastern Iroquoian groups relied on as the dietary mainstay, where corn, beans, and squash comprised approximately two-thirds of caloric intake, supplemented by and trade in and marine shells. Plains societies focused on communal buffalo hunts using drives and jumps, with limited cultivation in river valleys and trade at hubs like villages for corn and tools. Pacific Coast economies centered on , marine mammals, and root via controlled burning for camas and berries, with wealth redistribution through systems fostering social alliances. Extensive networks spanned continents, exchanging , high-quality chert, , and marine products for inland goods, as evidenced by artifacts in sites like the Hopewell Interaction Sphere extending into Canadian regions with Laurel and Saugeen complexes. These systems emphasized , with all First Nations harvesting plants for food and medicine in proportions varying by habitat, from 50-80% wild resources in non-agricultural areas.

European Contact and Early Interactions

Initial Encounters and Trade

The earliest documented European encounters with Indigenous peoples in what is now occurred around 1000 AD, when Norse explorers established a short-lived settlement at in Newfoundland. Led by , the Norse interacted with local groups, likely or Dorset ancestors, whom they termed skrælings; initial exchanges involved trading goods such as milk and red cloth for furs, but relations deteriorated into skirmishes, prompting the Norse to abandon the site after a few years. These contacts were fleeting and did not lead to sustained presence or trade networks. In 1497, Italian explorer , sailing under an English commission, reached the coast of Newfoundland or possibly , marking the first post-Norse European voyage to the region. Cabot's crew observed evidence of Indigenous activity, including snares, nets, and canoes with up to 22 occupants fishing near the shore, but direct meetings were limited or unrecorded in surviving accounts; he claimed the land for King Henry VII and noted its potential for cod fishing, which indirectly drew European fishermen who began informal bartering with coastal and peoples for furs using simple European items. More substantive initial contacts unfolded with French explorer Jacques Cartier's 1534 expedition, when he entered the and encountered St. Lawrence Iroquoian groups at . On July 24, Cartier met Chief and approximately 40-50 warriors, exchanging knives, bells, and red caps for furs and fish; he erected a claiming the for Francis I, which sparked protests from the Iroquoians, though temporary goodwill prevailed. Cartier later ascended the , trading similar metal and glass goods with villages like Hochelaga (near modern ), but also took ten captives, including Donnacona's sons, back to France, straining relations. These encounters initiated a pattern of centered on European demand for and other furs to supply hat-making in , exchanged for iron tools, axes, kettles, beads, and cloth, which Indigenous groups valued for their durability and utility over traditional stone and bone implements. By the mid-16th century, Basque and fishermen off Newfoundland's coasts had formalized this , acquiring thousands of pelts annually without establishing permanent posts, as Indigenous trappers controlled inland supply; this commerce, while economically beneficial short-term, introduced dependencies on European goods and foreshadowed competitive rivalries among European powers.

Alliances and Conflicts

Early European explorers and colonists formed pragmatic alliances with Indigenous groups primarily to facilitate the fur trade and counter rival Indigenous confederacies, often exacerbating pre-existing intertribal rivalries through the introduction of firearms and trade goods. French settlers in allied with Algonquian-speaking peoples, such as the Montagnais () and Algonquin, as well as the Huron-Wendat, to secure beaver pelts and protect trade routes from () incursions; these partnerships were cemented by mutual military support against common enemies. In June 1609, joined a war party of approximately 60 Huron and Algonquin warriors against a Mohawk force near , where French arquebuses killed at least two Mohawk leaders and routed the enemy, demonstrating the tactical advantage of European weapons and binding the French more closely to their allies while provoking long-term hostility. British and Dutch traders in the and later pursued counter-alliances with the Confederacy, supplying firearms in exchange for furs after the Iroquois displaced the around 1628, granting them direct access to European markets and enabling territorial expansion. These pacts, such as the treaties formalized in the late 17th century, positioned the Iroquois as intermediaries in the fur trade, but they were driven by economic self-interest rather than loyalty, with the Confederacy leveraging European rivalries to maintain autonomy. Conflicts intensified as competition over depleting beaver populations fueled the (also known as the French and Wars) from the 1640s to 1701, pitting forces—armed by British and Dutch suppliers—against French-allied groups like the Huron-Wendat and neutral tribes such as the Tobacco Nation. raids culminated in the destruction of Huronia in 1649, where warriors killed or captured thousands, including the slaughter of Jesuit missionaries and the dispersal of up to 10,000 Huron refugees to regions like and the ; French counteroffensives, including invasions of Mohawk territory in 1666 and 1693, inflicted heavy casualties but failed to halt dominance until the in 1701. These wars, rooted in rivalries rather than purely European directives, resulted in demographic collapses for allied Indigenous nations—Huron numbers fell from an estimated 30,000 in 1634 to fewer than 10,000 survivors by 1650—while fostering cycles of revenge raids and captive practices that integrated thousands into society.

Colonial Era and Treaties

Numbered Treaties and Land Surrenders

The Numbered Treaties consist of eleven agreements negotiated between the Government of Canada, on behalf of the British Crown, and various First Nations groups between 1871 and 1921, primarily in the Prairie provinces, northern Ontario, and parts of the Northwest Territories. These treaties enabled the transfer of approximately 2.3 million square kilometres of land from Indigenous title to the Crown, facilitating European settlement, railway construction, and agricultural expansion amid the decline of the buffalo herds that had sustained Plains economies. Negotiations typically involved Canadian commissioners, interpreters, and First Nations leaders, with texts drafted in English and translated orally into Indigenous languages, leading to disputes over interpretations of terms. The treaties followed a template where First Nations agreed to "surrender, cede, release, and yield" all rights to the specified territories to in perpetuity, excluding designated reserves. In return, provisions included one of reserve land per family of five, annual annuities starting at $3 per person (increasing to $5 in later treaties), rights to hunt, trap, and fish on unoccupied lands "as long as the sun shines and water flows," agricultural tools and , , , and promises of schools on reserves.
Treaty NumberSigning DatePrimary LocationIndigenous Groups Involved
1August 3, 1871Lower Fort Garry, Ojibwa and
2August 21, 1871Manitoba Post,
3October 3, 1873,
4September 1874Qu'Appelle Valley, and
5September 1875 (main), 1876 (additions) and and Ojibwa
6August-September 1876Fort Carlton and Fort Pitt, , ,
7September 1877 and Blackfoot Crossing,
8June 1899 (main), adhesions to 1900Lesser and areas, , others
9July 1905 and areas, and Ojibwa
10August 1906 and others
111921Fort Providence to Fort Simpson,
Distinct clauses appeared in some treaties, such as Treaty 6's "medicine chest" provision, interpreted by signatories as guaranteeing health care, and a famine relief clause reflecting concerns over food scarcity. Adhesions extended treaty terms to additional bands post-initial signings, covering further land surrenders. While the Crown regarded these as full alienations of land title, many First Nations viewed them as agreements for shared use and protection rather than outright cession, contributing to ongoing legal challenges and specific claims processes under modern treaty implementation frameworks.

Unresolved Claims and Modern Litigation

Specific claims address alleged breaches by the of its lawful obligations to First Nations under historical treaties, agreements, or statutes, including issues like mishandling of reserve lands or unfulfilled promises. As of March 31, 2025, the federal inventory held 754 specific claims, reflecting an increase from 682 the prior year, with 117 new claims submitted in the 2024-2025 . The government aims to resolve at least 35 such claims annually through negotiations, though critics, including First Nations organizations, highlight chronic backlogs, insufficient research funding, and delays that perpetuate unresolved grievances and hinder economic development. Comprehensive land claims pertain to Aboriginal rights and title in territories without historical treaties, primarily involving First Nations, , and Métis groups in regions like , the , and parts of and the . Since 1973, has finalized 26 such agreements, but dozens of negotiation tables remain active, covering vast areas and involving complex issues of land ownership, resource rights, and . Progress varies by region, with ongoing talks in encompassing multiple First Nations asserting title over untreated lands, often complicated by overlapping provincial interests and private development. Modern litigation has advanced recognition of Aboriginal title while exposing tensions between indigenous claims and existing land uses. In Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997), the articulated a test for proving based on continuous occupation pre-sovereignty, emphasizing oral histories as valid evidence and affirming that title excludes third-party alienation without consent or justification. The 2014 Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia decision marked the first judicial grant of to a specific, non-site-limited territory, requiring the to demonstrate substantial objectives and minimal impairment for any infringement. These rulings have facilitated negotiations but also prompted surges in claims, as seen in the August 2025 Supreme Court Cowichan Tribes v. case, which declared over traditional lands including urban fee-simple properties, raising uncertainties for private owners and infrastructure in areas like Richmond. Such outcomes underscore the evolving judicial framework, where unresolved claims increasingly intersect with economic interests, often delaying projects amid duties to consult and accommodate.

Government Policies Towards Integration

The Indian Act: Provisions and Impacts

The Indian Act was enacted on April 12, 1876, consolidating prior colonial legislation such as the 1857 Gradual Civilization Act to regulate federal administration of Indigenous peoples classified as status "Indians," their bands, and reserves. It designated the Minister of the Interior as Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, granting extensive authority over reserve management, band funds, property distribution, and individual status determination, with legal title to reserve lands held by the Crown in trust. The Act defined an "Indian" patrilineally as a male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a band, extending to his wife and unmarried minor children, while excluding those enfranchised or otherwise deemed assimilated. Core provisions included mechanisms for enfranchisement, whereby individuals could voluntarily or involuntarily lose status—and associated treaty rights and reserve access—upon demonstrating self-sufficiency, such as through , professional achievement, or ; women marrying non-Indians faced automatic loss until 1985 amendments. Band governance was structured around elected councils with authority over local bylaws, but all decisions required ministerial approval, including , wills, and expenditures; reserves were inalienable without band and federal consent, restricting individual property rights. Amendments in 1884 added cultural restrictions, such as Section 149 prohibiting potlatches, the Sun Dance, and other ceremonies deemed wasteful or contrary to assimilation, punishable by fines, imprisonment, or property confiscation. These bans were repealed in 1951, alongside expansions allowing bands limited self-management in and intoxicants. The Act's enfranchisement policy yielded minimal uptake, with only 75 cases between 1857 and 1876, failing to reduce the status population as intended and instead entrenching federal oversight; gender-discriminatory clauses led to thousands of women losing status, reversed by Bill C-31 in 1985, which added 174,500 registrants by addressing marital and pre-1985 losses. On , ministerial vetoes over band councils perpetuated , correlating with administrative delays and dependency on federal funding, as evidenced by ongoing requirements for approval on resource revenues and . Economically, reserve land tenure restrictions—prohibiting freehold sales without consent—have impeded private investment and development, contributing to 2016 employment rates of 47% for on-reserve Status First Nations aged 25-64, compared to higher off-reserve and non-Indigenous figures, alongside median incomes $32,000 lower than non-Indigenous . Culturally, the from 1884 to 1951 suppressed transfers and social reciprocity systems, forcing clandestine practices and disrupting knowledge transmission in Northwest Coast societies, though resilience persisted through oral adaptations; enforcement involved confiscating , with lasting effects on community leadership excluding women in some traditions. Overall, the Act centralized authority, perverting traditional autonomy into federal trusteeship and fostering socio-economic disparities, while providing a legal basis for status benefits amid assimilationist aims that prioritized European norms over Indigenous .

Reserves: Establishment and Consequences

Indian reserves in Canada were primarily established through the signed between 1871 and 1921, which covered much of western and northern Canada, and through the of 1876 that formalized the reserve system nationwide. Under these treaties, First Nations bands surrendered vast territories to in exchange for reserve lands, annual payments, and rights to hunt and fish. The defined reserves as tracts of land set apart by for the exclusive use of specific bands, held in trust by the federal government rather than owned outright by the bands or individuals. The reserve system originated from earlier colonial policies aimed at confining Indigenous populations to designated areas to facilitate settler expansion and resource extraction, with pre-Confederation treaties like the of 1850 also allocating reserve lands in . By 1921, the had created over 600 reserves, often comprising small portions of traditional territories—typically one per family of five—leading to fragmented and inadequate land bases in many cases. The Act's provisions prohibited the sale or lease of reserve lands without federal approval, embedding communal tenure and federal oversight that restricted individual property rights. Economically, the reserve system has fostered dependency on federal transfers due to communal land ownership, which limits collateral for loans and discourages private investment; Section 89 of the exempts reserve from seizure, further complicating credit access. Reserves with certificates of possession—allowing limited individual use rights—exhibit higher per capita incomes and lower rates compared to those under strict communal control, as evidenced by econometric analyses of First Nations communities. Overall, First Nations individuals on reserves face median incomes about half those of non-Indigenous , with rates exceeding 40% in many communities. Socially, reserves have correlated with elevated rates of , substandard , and disparities; for instance, on-reserve often suffers from maintenance backlogs and mold issues, contributing to chronic conditions at rates double the national average. Federal funding, while substantial—totaling billions annually—has not closed socio-economic gaps, as bureaucratic controls and lack of local perpetuate inefficiencies and in some band administrations. Despite these challenges, reserves have preserved communal identities and served as bases for legal claims to additional lands, though ongoing litigation highlights unresolved surrenders and encroachments. Recent policy shifts toward market-oriented reforms, such as enhanced property rights, show potential for growth, as communities with greater flexibility experience faster income gains for both Indigenous and neighboring populations.

Residential Schools: Objectives, Implementation, and Long-Term Effects

) The Indian residential school system was initiated with the explicit objective of assimilating Indigenous children into dominant Euro-Canadian society, thereby eradicating Indigenous cultures, languages, and familial ties to facilitate integration as productive citizens within a framework. This policy, rooted in 19th-century colonial ideologies of "," was articulated by Department of Indian Affairs officials, who viewed Indigenous traditionalism as an obstacle to national progress and sought to "kill the Indian in the " through enforced separation and re-education in Christianity, Western curricula, and industrial skills. Government rationale emphasized economic self-sufficiency for , reducing long-term federal expenditures on reserves, though implementation often prioritized cultural suppression over practical vocational training. Implementation began sporadically in the early , with the first federally supported opening in at the Mohawk Institute in , , but expanded systematically after in 1867 under the Department of Indian Affairs. By 1920, amendments to the made attendance compulsory for Indigenous children aged 7 to 15, with punishable by of parents; the federal government funded operations while Christian denominations—primarily Catholic (about 60%), Anglican, United, and Presbyterian—managed daily administration across approximately 139 schools in every province and territory except and . An estimated 150,000 First Nations, , and Métis children attended between the 1880s and 1996, when the last closed; conditions frequently included overcrowding, inadequate nutrition, rampant infectious diseases like , and documented physical, emotional, and sexual abuses by staff, though variability existed across institutions with some providing basic and trades training. Mortality rates were starkly elevated, with at least 4,100 documented deaths—primarily from disease and malnutrition—equating to 1 in 25 attendees, far exceeding contemporaneous non-Indigenous rates, though poor record-keeping and recent geophysical surveys suggesting additional unmarked burials complicate precise tallies. Long-term effects have manifested in elevated intergenerational health disparities, including higher incidences of chronic diseases, , , and disorders among survivors and descendants, attributable to familial disruption, cultural disconnection, and trauma transmission via parenting patterns altered by institutionalization. Empirical analyses link residential attendance to poorer self-rated , increased cardiovascular risks, and infectious disease burdens, with effects persisting across generations through epigenetic and socio-behavioral mechanisms. However, select econometric studies indicate potential socioeconomic upsides for attendees, such as higher high school completion rates, employment probabilities, and reduced reliance on transfers compared to non-attendees, suggesting that foundational literacy imparted—despite coercive delivery—contributed to formation amid broader systemic harms. These outcomes underscore causal complexities: while and inflicted direct psychological wounds, the system's partial educational role intersected with broader colonial policies, though prevailing affirms net negative impacts on community cohesion and identity, fueling ongoing litigation and efforts. Narratives emphasizing uniform warrant scrutiny against archival variability and contemporary critiques highlighting inflated death claims or overlooked parental agency in seeking schooling, yet substantiated survivor testimonies and affirm profound, enduring disruptions.

Demographics and Population Dynamics

Current Population and Growth Rates

According to the 2021 Census of Population conducted by , 1,807,250 individuals self-identified as , constituting 5.0% of Canada's total of 36,991,981. This marked an increase from 4.9% in the 2016 census. The Indigenous population encompasses those reporting identities as First Nations (North American Indian), Métis, Inuit, or combinations thereof, based on self-reported responses to census questions on ethnic or cultural origins and Indigenous group membership.
Indigenous Group (Single Identity)Population (2021)
First Nations1,048,405
624,220
70,545
These figures represent single-identity reporters; an additional 64,080 individuals reported multiple Indigenous identities, contributing to the overall total. First Nations formed the largest group at approximately 58% of the Indigenous population, followed by at 34.5% and at 3.9%. Between 2016 and 2021, the Indigenous population grew by 9.4%, from 1,673,785 to 1,807,250, outpacing the 5.3% growth in the non-Indigenous population. This expansion reflects a combination of natural increase—driven by a higher (around 2.1 children per woman for Indigenous women versus 1.5 for non-Indigenous) and a younger age structure (median age of 32.0 years compared to 41.0 years)—as well as net migration and changes in self-identification patterns. The growth rate slowed from the 42.5% increase observed between 2006 and 2016, partly due to modifications in question wording to reduce over-reporting and improve data quality. Projections based on these trends indicate continued rapid growth, potentially reaching 2.2 million by 2036, assuming sustained fertility and identification behaviors.

Geographic Distribution: Reserves vs. Urban Areas

In 2021, Canada's Indigenous population exceeded 1.8 million individuals, representing 5.0% of the total national population. Among First Nations people with Registered or Indian status, 40.6% resided on reserve, while 59.4% lived off reserve. This on-reserve population, concentrated on over 3,000 reserves and settlements primarily in rural and remote areas, accounted for a minority of the overall Indigenous demographic, as and groups do not live on reserves. Reserves are defined by as census subdivisions legally affiliated with First Nations bands, including Indian reserves and certain settlements. Urban areas host the majority of off-reserve Indigenous residents, with approximately 52% of all First Nations, , and peoples living in cities or towns. This figure reflects a continued shift toward , as the proportion of First Nations individuals in urban settings has increased over recent decades, with just under one-third remaining on reserves. communities are heavily urbanized, particularly in western provinces, with significant populations in census metropolitan areas like (over 46,000 in earlier data, indicative of ongoing concentration). populations, while largely in northern territories such as , include growing numbers in southern urban centers like and for and . Geographic concentrations highlight disparities: and together host over half of urban Indigenous residents, with major cities like , , and featuring large off-reserve populations. In contrast, reserves are unevenly distributed, with higher densities in the Prairies and northern regions, often in isolated locations limiting access to urban infrastructure. This distribution underscores a dual existence, where reserve-based communities maintain traditional ties to land, while urban migration supports economic integration but introduces challenges in service delivery and cultural preservation.

Cultural Aspects

Languages: Diversity and Decline

Canada's Indigenous languages encompass approximately 70 distinct tongues, classified into around 12 language families, reflecting the linguistic diversity of First Nations, , and Métis peoples prior to and following European contact. Major families include Algonquian (spoken by groups such as the and ), Athabaskan (prevalent in the north among peoples), (Inuit languages across the Arctic), Iroquoian (e.g., Mohawk and Huron), Salishan, Siouan, , and Wakashan, with additional isolates and smaller groups contributing to this variety. This diversity arose from millennia of isolated cultural development across vast territories, resulting in unique grammatical structures, vocabularies tied to local ecologies, and oral traditions encoding knowledge of environment, , and . The 2021 Census recorded 184,170 individuals with an Indigenous mother tongue, a 7.1% decline from , while 237,420 Indigenous people reported conversational proficiency in an , down 4.3% over the same period. These figures represent less than 1% of Canada's total population, with the largest shares among (Inuktut speakers numbering around 40,000) and (over 80,000 mother tongue speakers). Decline has been uneven: show relative stability due to higher speaker numbers, whereas many Salishan and Wakashan tongues have fewer than 100 fluent speakers, confined to elders. Historical government policies, particularly the residential school system operational from the late until 1996, enforced English or French-only instruction and punished use, severing intergenerational transmission and causing rapid proficiency loss. This suppression, combined with —where over 50% of Indigenous people now live off-reserve in predominantly English/French environments—and economic pressures favoring dominant languages, has accelerated erosion. UNESCO classifies 75% of Canada's 90 living Indigenous languages as endangered, with some dialects facing dormancy within a generation due to insufficient child speakers. Projections indicate that speaker numbers for 16 languages may drop over 90% by 2101 absent revitalization, though second-language learners rose 6.7% to 27.7% of speakers by 2021, hinting at partial community-driven recovery.

Arts, Music, and Spiritual Practices

Indigenous arts in Canada encompass diverse traditional practices among First Nations, , and communities, including wood carvings, poles, and intricate crafts that convey cultural narratives and spiritual significance. Northwest Coast First Nations, such as the Haida and , create poles from western red cedar, featuring carved figures representing clan crests, ancestors, and mythical beings to commemorate family histories and rights. These monumental structures, often 10 to 30 meters tall, were traditionally raised during ceremonies to affirm and alliances. artisans produce carvings depicting animals and human figures, rooted in hunting traditions and adapted for trade since the mid-20th century, emphasizing functional forms like handles alongside symbolic sculptures. crafts include floral on clothing and sashes, blending European glass beads with techniques from Indigenous influences, often featured in traditional for dances. Music traditions vary by group but centrally involve rhythmic drumming, vocal chants, and dances tied to and ceremonies. Among First Nations, hand drums and frame drums accompany songs passed orally through generations, used in healing rituals and social gatherings to invoke spiritual connections and recount histories. , known as katajjaq, features two women producing interlocking rhythms mimicking natural sounds like geese or rifles, traditionally performed as a competitive game or to entertain during long winters. Métis music incorporates tunes derived from Scottish and French settlers fused with Indigenous rhythms, exemplified by the Red River , a lively dance reflecting nomadic buffalo-hunting lifestyles and performed at fiddling contests. These musical forms, integral to powwows and feasts, sustain community bonds disrupted by historical policies like the Indian Act's bans on ceremonies from 1884 to 1951. Spiritual practices emphasize animistic worldviews where natural elements possess spirits, mediated by shamans or elders through rituals integrating and . In many First Nations groups, ceremonies like the shaking tent involve a spiritual leader entering a domed structure to commune with ancestors via conjured voices and movements, aiding or healing. (shamans) historically conducted soul retrievals and weather controls using songs and drums, though Christianity's introduction diminished overt practices by the early . Potlatches among Northwest Coast peoples distribute goods amid masked dances and unveilings to honor the deceased and validate chiefly authority, embodying reciprocal obligations central to social order. Despite colonial suppressions, including residential schools' erasure of languages and rituals, contemporary revitalization efforts incorporate these elements in urban powwows and land-based ceremonies, preserving causal links to ancestral knowledge for cultural continuity.

Adaptations and Revitalization Efforts

Efforts to revitalize Indigenous languages in Canada have intensified since the early 2000s, supported by federal funding and community-led initiatives, though empirical data indicate persistent declines in fluent speakers for most of the over 70 distinct languages. In the 2021 Census, 237,420 Indigenous individuals reported speaking an Indigenous language well enough for conversation, representing about 13.1% of the Indigenous population, a slight increase from prior decades but insufficient to reverse broader trends of attrition. Projections based on census data forecast that speaker numbers could drop by more than 90% in 16 languages between 2001 and 2101, with dormancy risks exceeding 50% for many others due to intergenerational transmission failures. Community immersion programs and the United Nations Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032) have promoted reclamation, evidenced by 65,680 people in 2021 speaking an Indigenous language without it as their mother tongue, signaling adaptive second-language acquisition. In arts and music, revitalization manifests through powwows, contemporary fusions, and public performances that blend traditional forms with modern expressions, fostering cultural continuity amid urbanization. Drum dancing, throat singing, and storytelling persist in and First Nations communities, often integrated into festivals that draw thousands annually and serve as platforms for youth engagement. First Nations musicians have revived traditions, with artists reporting community healing through songs that preserve hyper-diverse repertoires suppressed historically, contributing to a booming sector reaching broader audiences. These adaptations include and collaborations, enabling resistance narratives and resilience themes in tracks that challenge colonial legacies without diluting core protocols. Spiritual practices have seen resurgence via efforts, with communities reconnecting to ceremonies like sweat lodges and vision quests, often led by elders in northern regions where cultural reclamation aids healing from residential school traumas. Federal programs in 2024-2025 allocated resources for First Nations-led cultural reclamation, linking to improved outcomes such as reduced prevalence in self-determining communities. However, success varies; while cultural efficacy correlates positively with health metrics, systemic barriers like geographic isolation limit scalability, underscoring that revitalization depends on local autonomy rather than top-down policies. and cultural programming in bilingual areas has shown positive associations with educational achievement, suggesting causal benefits from sustained exposure.

Political Structures and Rights

Band Councils and Self-Government

Band councils serve as the primary governing bodies for First Nations bands under the Indian Act, a federal statute first enacted in 1876 that consolidated earlier colonial legislation regulating Indigenous affairs. The elective band council system originated with the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869, which introduced elected chiefs and councils to replace traditional hereditary leadership in some communities, with the Indian Act formalizing this structure by stipulating elections every two years unless bands opt for longer terms via custom codes. As of 2023, Canada recognizes 619 First Nations bands, each typically governed by one elected chief and councillors—one per every 100 band members, with a minimum of two councillors—responsible for administering reserve-based services funded by federal transfers. The powers of band councils are circumscribed by the , confining them primarily to enacting by-laws on matters such as reserve , taxation, intoxicants, and local , many of which require approval from the federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Councils also hold duties to band members, including prudent management of communal lands and revenues from resources or settlements, though ultimate authority over reserves remains with the federal government, which can intervene in cases of . This framework has drawn from Indigenous leaders for imposing a non-traditional, dependency-reinforcing model that supplants pre-colonial systems like consensus-based clans or hereditary chiefs, rendering councils extensions of federal oversight rather than sovereign entities. For instance, amendments in 1920 empowered the Department of Indian Affairs to depose hereditary leaders, entrenching elected systems despite opposition from communities favoring customary . Efforts to transcend the band council model have centered on self-government agreements, which enable participating First Nations to enact laws on , elections, and internal affairs without routine federal veto, often building on modern treaties resolving claims. As of March 2024, 25 such agreements cover 43 Indigenous communities, including comprehensive models like the Final Agreement of 1999, which granted legislative authority over lands and resources in , and the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act of 1986, the first standalone federal self-government legislation. In , 11 First Nations have finalized self-government accords since the 1993 Umbrella Final Agreement, allowing jurisdiction over health, education, and alongside band council functions. Sectoral agreements, such as the 2024 Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement involving 23 First Nations, further devolve specific powers like curriculum control. Despite these advances, self-government remains exceptional, with over 50 negotiation tables active but progress hampered by fiscal disputes and federal reluctance to relinquish oversight, perpetuating reliance on structures for most bands. Indigenous critiques highlight that even self-governing entities often negotiate from positions of economic disadvantage, yielding arrangements that prioritize federal interests over full autonomy.

Constitutional Recognition and Key Court Decisions

Section 35 of the , recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of , defined to include the Indian, , and peoples of . This provision, enacted during the of the Constitution on April 17, 1982, marked the first explicit constitutional entrenchment of such rights, shifting from prior reliance on and statutes like the . The recognition applies to rights existing at the time of enactment, requiring proof of pre-contact or pre-sovereignty practices integral to distinctive aboriginal cultures, and imposes a justificatory framework for any government infringements. Prior to 1982, the of Canada's decision in Calder v. (1973) laid foundational groundwork by affirming, in a 4-3 split, that —a right to land derived from pre-sovereignty occupation—existed at and had not been wholly extinguished by colonial legislation in . The case, brought by leaders including Frank Calder, rejected the province's claim of radical or absolute title free of encumbrances, prompting federal policy shifts toward modern land claims processes despite the Court's refusal to grant the declaration sought due to evidentiary limits. Following the 1982 constitutional amendment, R. v. Sparrow (1990) established the initial test for evaluating infringements on section 35 rights, ruling that Ronald Sparrow's Musqueam practices constituted a protected communal right to for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, which could not be extinguished post-1982 without clear intent. The unanimous decision held that regulatory limits under the Fisheries Act were justifiable only if non-discriminatory, meeting a minimal infringement standard, conserving the resource, and prioritizing aboriginal needs over commercial or sports , while rejecting prior regulatory schemes that assumed unlimited discretion. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) advanced the jurisprudence on , with the defining it as a collective, inalienable interest in land encompassing use, occupation, and exclusion of third parties, proven through evidence of sufficient, continuous pre-sovereignty occupation meeting territorial criteria. and Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs' claims over 58,000 square kilometers in northern highlighted the admissibility of oral histories as independent evidence, mandated a provincial duty to consult on potential infringements even absent proven title, and clarified that title could only be extinguished by clear, plain, and unambiguous legislation pre-1982. The Court ordered a retrial for title determination, emphasizing that title includes inherent limits against economically unviable uses destructive of the land's character. In Tsilhqot'in Nation v. (2014), the granted the first judicial declaration of over a specific, continuous territory of 1,750 square kilometers in central , confirming that title extends beyond village sites to areas of exclusive, intensive use for sustenance, without requiring each square inch of proof. The unanimous ruling refined the test from Delgamuukw, holding that 's logging authorizations breached the duty to consult and infringed title without justification, as post-title infringements demand deeper reconciliation including consent for significant developments, though not a . This decision underscored title's proprietary dimensions, obligating to prioritize title-holders' interests in decision-making affecting the land.

Implementation of UNDRIP and Recent Legislation

Canada initially opposed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007, citing concerns over provisions on self-determination and land rights that could undermine national sovereignty. The federal government endorsed UNDRIP on November 12, 2010, with qualifications preserving the Canadian Constitution's division of powers, and reaffirmed full support without reservations on May 10, 2016, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. This shift aligned with broader reconciliation efforts but did not immediately alter domestic law, as UNDRIP remains a non-binding interpretive framework rather than enforceable treaty. Federal implementation advanced through Bill C-15, introduced on December 3, 2020, and receiving on June 21, 2021, as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Act. The Act mandates the government to align federal laws, policies, and practices with UNDRIP principles, including developing an action plan in consultation with , but explicitly does not create a in courts or amend the . It emphasizes (FPIC) as a matter of high importance without granting veto rights over government decisions, consistent with precedents limiting Indigenous consent to absolute requirements only in cases of established . A joint action plan, titled "The Roadmap to UNDRIP Act," was released on June 21, 2023, outlining over 100 initiatives across , lands, and , with progress tracked in annual reports, including the fourth issued on August 20, 2025. Provincially, led with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), enacted on November 28, 2019, which commits to legislative alignment and has influenced negotiations, such as the Haida Nation Recognition Act passed in April 2024, acknowledging Haida title over Haida Gwaii without extinguishing Crown sovereignty. Related federal measures include the 2019 Act respecting First Nations, and Métis children, youth and families (Bill C-92), upheld unanimously by the in 2024, prioritizing Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare to address overrepresentation in care systems. Critics, including some Indigenous leaders and policy analysts, argue implementation remains largely symbolic, with insufficient funding, vague FPIC application risking litigation, and limited empirical progress in resolving land disputes or economic disparities, as government consultations have faced accusations of inadequacy. Others contend UNDRIP's collective rights framework conflicts with individual constitutional protections, potentially complicating resource development without delivering measurable sovereignty gains. Despite these debates, the framework has facilitated over 50 modern agreements by 2025, though effectiveness hinges on ongoing judicial interpretations rather than legislative fiat alone.

Economic Conditions

Employment, Income, and Poverty Rates

In 2021, the employment rate for Indigenous peoples aged 25 to 64 was substantially lower than for non-Indigenous Canadians, at 58.8% overall compared to 74.1%, with the largest gaps observed among Registered Indians on reserve (47.1%) and Inuit (55.2%). Métis had the highest rate among Indigenous groups at 69.1%, while Registered Indians off reserve stood at 58.7%. Recent Labour Force Survey data for off-reserve Indigenous populations aged 15 and over indicate employment rates hovering around 58% in 2025, slightly below the non-Indigenous rate of approximately 61%. These disparities reflect geographic isolation in remote communities, lower educational attainment, and limited local opportunities, though off-reserve and urban Indigenous individuals show narrower gaps.
Indigenous Group (Aged 25-64, 2021)Employment Rate (%)Gap vs. Non-Indigenous (74.1%)
Registered Indians (on reserve)47.1-27.0
Registered Indians (off reserve)58.7-15.4
55.2-18.9
69.1-5.0
Median incomes for also trail non-Indigenous levels, with total for those aged 15 and over at $34,800 in 2020 versus $41,200 for non-Indigenous , and at $30,800 compared to $37,600. Among working-age adults (25-64), the individual gap was widest for Registered Indians on reserve ($32,000 versus $50,400 non-Indigenous), narrowing for ($48,800). First Nations and medians were $32,400 and $33,200 in total , respectively, while reached $39,200—closest to the non-Indigenous figure. These differences persist despite some convergence from 2015 to 2020, attributed in part to higher reliance on government transfers in remote areas and barriers to high-wage sectors. Poverty rates, measured by the Measure, affected 17.5% of Indigenous people of all ages in 2023, more than double the 9.9% rate for non-Indigenous Canadians. On-reserve First Nations communities experience elevated rates, with reaching 37.4% in 2021 Census data, compared to 23.7% for Indigenous children overall. Low-income prevalence declined by about 29% for Indigenous groups between 2015 and 2020 (from 25.2% to 17.9%), reducing the number in low-income situations by 136,000 individuals, yet on-reserve isolation and dependency on seasonal or subsistence economies sustain vulnerabilities. and First Nations in northern territories face compounded risks due to high living costs and sparse infrastructure.

Resource Development and Disputes

The Crown's constitutional duty to consult , affirmed by the in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004), mandates meaningful engagement and potential accommodation prior to resource development that may infringe on asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights, but explicitly rejects a veto power over projects. This framework contrasts with (FPIC) under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, enacted domestically in 2021, which some Indigenous advocates interpret as requiring affirmative agreement, though federal policy and jurisprudence subordinate it to the duty to consult without elevating it to veto status. Disputes frequently arise from differing interpretations, internal Indigenous governance divisions (e.g., elected band councils versus hereditary leaders), and competing priorities between and economic gains from sectors like , gas, , and . Pipeline projects exemplify recurrent conflicts. The Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX), doubling capacity from to , , secured consent from over 50 Indigenous communities through impact benefit agreements (IBAs) promising jobs, training, and equity ownership, with the federal government acquiring the project for $4.5 billion in 2018 amid delays from legal challenges and protests. Opposition from groups like the Secwepemc Nation cited risks to unceded territories, including a trenched burial site, yet the project, operational by May 2024, has facilitated Indigenous-led ownership bids to address community poverty. Similarly, the Coastal GasLink pipeline, supplying the facility, obtained support from 20 elected First Nations via IBAs valued at over $1 billion in benefits, but faced blockades by Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs asserting title over unceded lands, leading to 2020 rail disruptions estimated at $425 million daily in stranded goods by industry analysts, though the Parliamentary Budget Officer found negligible national GDP effects. Mining and forestry disputes parallel these tensions, as in Ontario's chromite deposit, where First Nations negotiations stalled development despite potential billions in revenues, or British Columbia's revenue-sharing pacts distributing $26 million in mineral taxes to communities since 2010. Economic analyses indicate that resolved IBAs yield substantial First Nations gains—e.g., pipeline proximity correlating with higher incomes in supportive communities—but prolonged litigation and protests inflate project costs by up to 20-30%, deterring and perpetuating reserve . Nationally, Indigenous gross domestic income from resources grew 57.6% between 2012 and 2021, comprising 2.4% of Canada's total, yet uneven revenue distribution and veto-like assertions in disputes hinder broader prosperity, with chiefs demanding at least 2% shares from provincial royalties as of 2025.

Entrepreneurship and Off-Reserve Successes

Indigenous-owned businesses in Canada, many operated off-reserve, number over 50,000 and contribute more than $31 billion annually to the national GDP, with total economic activity exceeding $100 billion according to analyses by the Indigenomics Institute. These enterprises are launching at five times the rate of non-Indigenous counterparts, reflecting rapid growth in sectors such as , , clean , and . Indigenous small and medium-sized enterprises generate $48.9 billion in economic value, often demonstrating stronger sales growth compared to the broader Canadian SME average. Off-reserve Indigenous populations, comprising about 62.5% of Registered Indians as of the 2021 Census, show elevated entrepreneurial activity relative to on-reserve counterparts, with rates among First Nations women off-reserve at 7% and women at 10% in 2021. This trend aligns with higher overall employment rates off-reserve and increased across Indigenous groups since 2016, facilitated by proximity to urban markets and fewer land-use restrictions. entrepreneurs, frequently off-reserve, exhibit labour force participation rates surpassing non-Indigenous averages, underscoring the advantages of operating outside reserve boundaries. Notable off-reserve successes include Bobbie Racette's Virtual Gurus in , , which provides virtual administrative services and has scaled nationally, earning recognition for Indigenous business leadership in 2022. Similarly, Animikii Indigenous , based in , has expanded into the U.S. market since its founding in , specializing in software solutions for government and enterprise clients. These examples illustrate how off-reserve Indigenous entrepreneurs leverage diverse industries for sustainable growth, contributing to broader .

Social and Health Challenges

Health Disparities: Mortality, Chronic Diseases

Indigenous populations in experience significantly lower compared to the non-Indigenous population. Between 2016 and 2021, at birth for the total Indigenous population stood at 77.20 years, versus 84.99 years for non- Canadians. Disparities vary by group: at 80.47 years, registered First Nations at 73.98 years (71.42 years on-reserve and 76.04 years off-reserve), and at 71.91 years. rates are also higher among Indigenous groups, with reductions observed over time but persistent gaps relative to non-Indigenous rates from 1994-1996 to 2014-2016. Age-standardized mortality rates for First Nations on-reserve were 581 per 100,000 person-years from 2006 to 2016, compared to 335 for non-Indigenous populations. Key contributors to excess mortality include chronic conditions such as and heart diseases, alongside injuries, alcohol- and drug-related disorders. Avoidable deaths among First Nations adults are disproportionately driven by , substance use disorders, and injuries, highlighting preventable factors beyond access barriers. Behavioral risk factors like higher prevalence, , and alcohol consumption empirically correlate with these outcomes; for instance, on-reserve First Nations exhibit elevated rates of these risks, exacerbating mortality gaps. Recent declines in First Nations life expectancy, such as a 6.1-year drop in (6.8 years for males, 5.2 for females), have been linked to effects compounding underlying vulnerabilities. Chronic disease prevalence is markedly higher among Indigenous groups, with affecting First Nations adults off-reserve at 1.72 times the general population rate, Métis at 1.22 times, and at 1.18 times. On-reserve First Nations rates reached 17.2% in 2011 data, with diagnoses occurring at younger ages and more severe presentations than in non-Indigenous . (CVD) prevalence among First Nations is approximately 2.5 times that of non-First Nations, with heart disease rates up to 50% higher and stroke mortality twice the national average. These disparities persist across groups, though Métis show stable heart failure incidence around 0.4 per 100 from 2012 to 2020. Respiratory conditions like affect 6-12% of First Nations, , and Métis children. Causal factors for chronic disease burdens include elevated , physical inactivity, poor diet, and , which are more prevalent in Indigenous communities, particularly on-reserve, independent of historical narratives. These risks drive downstream complications, such as ischemic heart disease deaths, which declined annually by 4.4% among First Nations from event data, yet remain elevated overall. Interventions targeting modifiable behaviors have shown potential to narrow gaps, as evidenced by regional gains pre-2016.

Education Outcomes and Literacy

Indigenous peoples in Canada exhibit significantly lower education outcomes compared to the non-Indigenous , with persistent gaps in high school completion, postsecondary attainment, and skills. According to 2021 Census data analyzed by , 63% of First Nations youth aged 19 to 30 had completed high school, compared to 91% of non-Indigenous youth. Overall postsecondary completion rates for Indigenous adults aged 25 to 64 stood at 49.2% in 2021, with First Nations at 45.3%, at 56.3%, and at 33.6%, all below the non-Indigenous rate of approximately 70%. University degree attainment is particularly low, at 16% for versus 36% for the general . These disparities vary by subgroup and location. On-reserve First Nations students face steeper challenges, with high school completion rates historically lagging behind off-reserve counterparts, though recent data show increases from 2016 to 2021 in remote communities for both First Nations and . outcomes are relatively stronger, reflecting greater urban integration, while postsecondary rates remain the lowest, influenced by geographic isolation in and the . Despite federal investments exceeding billions annually in programs, such as the Post-Secondary Student Support Program, gaps have narrowed only modestly since the 2016 Census, with high school completion rising but still trailing national averages by nearly 30 percentage points. Literacy proficiency among Indigenous adults is also suboptimal, correlating with broader socioeconomic barriers. In 2012, only 35% of off-reserve First Nations people aged 25 to 65 achieved level 3 or higher on the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), compared to 56% of the overall Canadian population, indicating limitations in for everyday tasks like interpreting forms or instructions. More recent provincial assessments, such as in , report early rates for Indigenous learners at around 63% for females in , underscoring foundational skill deficits that persist into adulthood. Empirical analyses attribute these outcomes to multifaceted factors, including family , community remoteness, and rates exceeding 20% in some First Nations schools, rather than solely historical policies. Government statistics, while comprehensive, may understate on-reserve challenges due to self-reported data and definitional variations in "completion."
IndicatorIndigenous RateNon-Indigenous RateSource Year
High School Completion (Youth 19-30)63% (First Nations)91%2016/2021
Postsecondary Attainment (Adults 25-64)49.2% overall~70%2021
University Degree (All Ages)16%36%2021
Literacy Level 3+ (Off-Reserve First Nations, 25-65)35%56%2012
Progress indicators include a 10-15% rise in First Nations high school completion from 2006 to 2021, driven by targeted interventions, yet causal analyses suggest that without addressing intergenerational and cultural disconnection from mainstream curricula, full parity remains elusive.

Crime, , and Family Breakdown

Indigenous communities in Canada experience disproportionately high rates of violent crime compared to the general population. In 2023, the homicide victimization rate among Indigenous people stood at 9.31 per 100,000, over six times the rate for non-Indigenous Canadians. Indigenous individuals also comprise about 33% of the federal prison population despite representing roughly 5% of the national populace. Victimization surveys indicate that 55% of Indigenous adults have experienced violent crime in their lifetime, exceeding non-Indigenous rates. These patterns are particularly acute on reserves, where rural isolation and limited policing contribute to elevated incident rates, including property crimes and assaults. Substance abuse exacerbates criminality and health burdens within Indigenous groups. First Nations recorded 254 toxic deaths in 2020, a 119% rise from 2019, amid a broader crisis. Indigenous engaging in use face a 13-fold higher mortality from related causes. remains prevalent, with studies linking it to intergenerational patterns tied to historical disruptions, though empirical data show higher consumption and dependency rates than in non-Indigenous cohorts. communities report elevated non-medical and illicit substance use, often correlating with declines and . Family structures exhibit significant instability, reflected in child welfare metrics. Indigenous children, 7.7% of those under 15, constitute 53.8% of placements as of 2021. Among First Nations parents, 49.6% have had files opened for their children, compared to 13.1% for non-First Nations. This overrepresentation stems from substantiated and cases at rates several times higher, often intertwined with substance issues and . Lone-parent households predominate in many communities, correlating with cycles and reduced child outcomes, though off-reserve Indigenous families show somewhat lower apprehension rates.

Controversies and Public Debates

Legacy of Residential Schools: Empirical Evidence vs. Narratives

The dominant narrative surrounding the legacy of Canada's Indian Residential Schools (IRS), as articulated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) in its 2015 final report, posits the system as a form of cultural genocide that inflicted profound intergenerational trauma, manifesting in elevated rates of issues, , , and family dysfunction among Indigenous populations. This perspective, widely disseminated through academic and media channels, attributes much of contemporary Indigenous disadvantage to the and alleged widespread abuse within the schools, which operated from the 1880s until 1997 and involved approximately 150,000 children. However, this account has been critiqued for relying heavily on survivor testimonies and self-reported data, potentially overlooking confounding factors such as contemporaneous epidemics, , and pre-existing cultural disruptions from European contact. Empirical studies reveal a more nuanced picture, with evidence of both adverse and beneficial long-term effects. A 2024 analysis of Canadian census and tax data from 1991 to 2016, covering over 2.5 million Indigenous individuals, found that IRS attendance among parents correlated with improved outcomes for their children, including a 4-6 increase in high completion rates, higher employment probabilities, and reduced reliance on social assistance. These gains persisted after controlling for parental and location, suggesting that exposure to formal and skills in the schools may have transmitted adaptive advantages despite the system's coercive nature. Conversely, multiple cohort studies link direct IRS attendance to poorer self-rated health, higher chronic disease prevalence, and elevated ideation, with odds ratios for adverse outcomes ranging from 1.5 to 3.0 compared to non-attendees. Yet, these associations are predominantly correlational, often derived from voluntary surveys like the 2015-2016 First Nations Regional Health Survey, which exhibit and fail to fully disentangle school-specific effects from broader socioeconomic deprivations or genetic predispositions to conditions like , which accounted for up to 60% of documented student deaths between 1880 and 1930. Claims of pervasive physical and underpin much of the trauma narrative, with surveys indicating that 40-50% of former students report such experiences; however, these figures stem from self-reports incentivized by compensation under the 2006 , which disbursed over CAD 3 billion without requiring corroborative evidence. Comparative data on in non-Indigenous settings, such as orphanages and reform schools during the same , reveal similarly high incidence rates—often exceeding 30% for physical mistreatment—attributable to understaffing, poor oversight, and societal norms rather than uniquely genocidal intent. Intergenerational transmission of trauma, frequently invoked to explain persistent disparities, lacks strong causal validation; biological embedding hypotheses, such as epigenetic changes, remain speculative with no replicated human trials specific to IRS survivors, and statistical models show that family-level confounders like parental better predict child outcomes than school attendance alone. Skeptics of the trauma-centric view, including analyses from independent policy institutes, argue that the narrative overstates IRS causality while underemphasizing post-1960s policy failures, such as the expansion of on reserves, which fostered family breakdown and discouraged more than historical schooling. For instance, Indigenous literacy rates, near zero prior to widespread IRS implementation, rose to over 50% by the among attendees, enabling subsequent generations to access trades and leadership roles, as evidenced by the prominence of IRS alumni in modern Indigenous . This empirical contrast highlights how institutional biases in academia and media—often aligned with advocacy for expansive reparations—may prioritize emotive testimonies over rigorous controls, potentially perpetuating victimhood frameworks that hinder causal realism in addressing root issues like reserve isolation and deficits.

Reconciliation Process: Achievements, Failures, and Critiques

The reconciliation process in , formalized through the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) report's 94 Calls to Action, aims to address historical injustices against , particularly the legacy of residential schools, through government apologies, policy reforms, and resource allocations. Federal initiatives include the 2017 adoption of 10 Principles respecting the Government of 's relationship with and the 2021 legislative implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), upheld by the in February 2024. Achievements include accelerated resolution of specific claims—grievances over treaty breaches or mismanaged lands— with the federal government settling 125 claims since January 2015 and disbursing approximately $18 billion under the Trudeau administration through 2025, including 69 settlements totaling $7.1 billion in fiscal year 2024/25 alone. Partial progress has occurred in lifting long-term drinking water advisories on First Nations reserves, reducing them from over 100 in 2015 to 37 as of May 2025, with ongoing investments exceeding $8 billion since 2016. These efforts have also facilitated nation-to-nation dialogues and some self-government agreements, contributing to isolated economic gains in select communities. Failures are evident in stalled implementation of TRC Calls to Action, with the reporting zero completed calls for the 2024-2025 as of September 2025. Persistent deficits, such as the 35 long-term water advisories noted in reports from April 2025, underscore delivery shortfalls despite promises to eliminate them by 2021. Socioeconomic indicators show minimal improvement: continue to experience income levels roughly half the national average, with 60% in the bottom half of the compared to under 45% for non-Indigenous Canadians, and gaps in , , and outcomes widening in some metrics post-2015. Critiques highlight the process's inefficacy despite substantial , as billions in settlements and programs have not closed core disparities in , , or rates, with audits from 2024 revealing a "distressing and persistent pattern of failure" in federal support for housing, policing, and water services. Economists at the argue that the specific claims program has become "out-of-control," prioritizing payouts over governance reforms, potentially exacerbating dependency on federal transfers without addressing internal factors like reserve mismanagement. Some Indigenous scholars and advocates, such as those from First Peoples Law, contend the framework fails by denying inherent rights and perpetuating colonial structures, though empirical analyses emphasize that reconciliation's emphasis on collective entitlements over individual agency hinders self-reliance. Others describe government actions as performative, prioritizing symbolic gestures like for Truth and Reconciliation over proactive policy changes that could yield measurable outcomes.

Special Status: Arguments for Equality vs. Distinct Rights

The debate over special status for Indigenous peoples in Canada centers on the tension between constitutional recognition of distinct Aboriginal and treaty rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and calls for uniform equality under the law as full citizens without group-based privileges. Proponents of distinct rights argue that historical treaties, pre-colonial occupancy, and inherent self-government necessitate protections to preserve cultural distinctiveness and enable self-determination, as affirmed by Supreme Court rulings like Calder v. British Columbia (1973) and Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997), which established Aboriginal title and the Crown's duty to consult. These rights, they contend, address ongoing reconciliation with the Crown's historical breaches, with federal principles emphasizing self-government as a full expression of self-determination rather than delegated authority. However, critics highlight that expansive interpretations of Section 35 have elevated Aboriginal rights above Charter protections, creating veto-like powers over development that prioritize group claims over individual equality and economic progress. Arguments for distinct rights emphasize empirical needs for cultural survival and autonomy, pointing to treaties like the (1871–1921) as binding nation-to-nation agreements granting reserved lands and resource shares in exchange for cession of vast territories. Self-government agreements, numbering over 25 modern treaties and self-governance pacts by 2023, are seen as advancing Indigenous jurisdiction over lands, , and , potentially reducing dependency on federal transfers. Yet, data reveal persistent disparities: on-reserve First Nations households face food insecurity at nearly double the rate of non-Indigenous households (44.5% vs. 24.3% in 2017–2018), with housing lasting half as long (15 years vs. 35 years off-reserve). Advocates counter that underfunding and colonial legacies, not the status itself, drive these issues, though federal spending on Indigenous programs reached $32 billion annually by 2024—nearly triple 2015 levels—yielding only modest gains in living standards uncorrelated with fiscal inputs. In contrast, proponents of equality argue that special status perpetuates dependency and subpar outcomes, as evidenced by superior socio-economic indicators for Indigenous individuals off-reserve: 60% of off-reserve First Nations adults reported excellent or very good in recent surveys, compared to lower rates on-reserve, where 37.8% of adults aged 18+ self-assess positively. Off-reserve Aboriginals exhibit higher , , and attainment, with 62.5% of Registered Indians living off-reserve by 2021, suggesting integration fosters self-reliance over reserve isolation. Political scientist Tom Flanagan critiques the "Aboriginal orthodoxy" of self-government as entrenching inefficient band councils under the , advocating ownership on reserves, termination of status privileges, and full assimilation into provincial jurisdictions to align with equal , as reserves correlate with failures and poverty traps. This view posits that federal spending on First Nations ($25,000+ annually in some estimates by 2012) far exceeds the $7,300 for non-Indigenous , yet fails to close gaps, imposing a fiscal burden on taxpayers without proportional . Public opinion reflects this divide, with a 2025 poll showing 45% of Canadians favoring equal treatment over unique status (55%), alongside demands for financial transparency in band spending. Equality advocates, including think tanks like the , contend that in a , group-based undermine universal equality, as special status has not empirically elevated most despite decades of policy, instead fostering litigation over resource projects that stalls national development. Conversely, distinct supporters warn that dismantling Section 35 protections risks erasing treaty obligations and cultural erasure, though empirical critiques note that self-government experiments often replicate federal dependencies without market incentives like fee-simple . The persistence of on-reserve challenges—higher chronic disease, , and family instability—fuels arguments that causal factors like geographic isolation and lack of , rather than alone, explain disparities, favoring policy shifts toward voluntary exit from special status.

Identity Claims and Fraudulent Assertions

In , fraudulent claims of Indigenous identity, often termed "pretendianism," have proliferated amid policies relying on self-identification for accessing reserved positions in academia, government, scholarships, and funding programs. These assertions typically involve individuals fabricating or exaggerating ancestral ties to Indigenous nations without verifiable genealogical or community affiliation, exploiting affirmative measures intended for those with genuine connections. The issue undermines resource allocation to authentic Indigenous beneficiaries and erodes public trust in equity initiatives, with estimates suggesting the number of such pretenders may reach tens of thousands, though precise quantification remains elusive due to lax verification standards. A prominent case involved Carrie Bourassa, a former and scientific director at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's Institute of Indigenous Peoples' Health, who from the 1990s claimed , , and heritage to secure research grants and positions. Genealogical investigations revealed her ancestry as primarily French, Danish, and Eastern European Jewish, with no substantiated Indigenous lineage, leading to her resignation in June 2022 following an institutional probe. Bourassa's deception spanned decades, including publications and public roles portraying her as Indigenous, which critics argued displaced qualified Indigenous scholars. Another instance occurred in 2023–2024 with the Gill family from , where a mother and her twin daughters falsely claimed identity to enroll the daughters in schools and secure over CAD 100,000 in scholarships and benefits. The mother pleaded guilty to in February 2024 and received a three-year sentence in June 2024, marking Canada's first such conviction for Indigenous , with the court emphasizing the harm to communities and the need to deter pretenders. This case highlighted vulnerabilities in northern territories, where non-residents exploited self-ID for residency-based perks. Similar fraud has surfaced in federal politics, as seen with , who resigned as Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages in November 2024 after admitting his prior claims were erroneous, despite earlier self-identifying for government roles. hiring, which includes Indigenous self-declaration forms with penalties for falsehoods, has faced internal tensions over unverified claims, prompting calls for stricter attestation and audits. Indigenous leaders and reports, such as Jean Teillet's 2022 analysis for the , advocate shifting from self-identification to proof of ancestral connection via citizenship in a recognized , lineage, or acceptance to curb . Universities have responded by piloting verification guidelines, while Indigenous organizations like the Manitoba Federation and Chiefs of urge federal legislation to impose consequences, arguing that unchecked pretenders dilute genuine claims and strain limited resources. Despite these efforts, implementation lags, as institutions fear legal challenges over or , perpetuating reliance on honor systems prone to abuse.

Recent Developments

Policy Reforms and Funding Initiatives

In recent years, the Canadian federal government has pursued policy reforms aimed at advancing Indigenous self-government through negotiated agreements that devolve authority over internal affairs from the Indian Act framework. As of 2025, Canada has ratified 25 self-government agreements covering 43 Indigenous communities, with additional pacts in negotiation or implementation, including the September 2025 agreement with the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got'įnę in the Northwest Territories, which recognizes their jurisdiction over education, language, health, and child welfare. Provincial initiatives, such as British Columbia's April 2024 Haida Nation Recognition Act, have similarly affirmed Aboriginal title and self-governance rights for specific nations, marking a shift toward distinctions-based approaches. Federal funding for Indigenous programs has escalated dramatically, tripling from approximately $11 billion annually in 2015 to over $32 billion projected for 2025, encompassing transfers for , , education, and . Budget 2024 allocated specific sums, including $1.3 billion over five years starting in 2023-24 for implementing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP), $241.7 million for facilities, and $388 million for and clean energy projects. Indigenous Services Canada has emphasized targeted investments, such as water systems and , in with communities, alongside targets mandating at least 5% of federal contracts to Indigenous businesses by 2025-26. The March 2025 Indigenous Justice Strategy represents a key to address overrepresentation in the system, prioritizing collaborative efforts with provinces, territories, and Indigenous groups to reduce systemic through culturally appropriate programming and alternative models. Emerging funding models, including outcomes-based financing pilots, tie disbursements to measurable results in areas like economic , though implementation challenges persist due to data gaps and political dependencies. Despite these initiatives, analyses indicate limited proportional improvements in socioeconomic outcomes, with critiques attributing inefficiencies to administrative overhead, dependency structures, and insufficient mechanisms in expenditure tracking. The recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the , marked a foundational legal advance, constitutionally entrenching pre-existing and prompting subsequent judicial interpretations to define their scope. Prior to this, the 1973 decision in Calder v. affirmed the existence of as a right not wholly extinguished by colonial assertions, overturning prior doctrines that denied such title without explicit surrender. This ruling spurred the modern treaty negotiation process, with over 25 comprehensive land claims agreements ratified since 1973, covering approximately 600,000 square kilometers and benefiting around 100,000 Indigenous individuals through resource revenue sharing and provisions. Subsequent Supreme Court rulings established tests for rights infringement and proof of title. In R. v. Sparrow (1990), the Court articulated a framework requiring that any limitation on Aboriginal rights pursue a compelling objective, be minimally impairing, and compensate where possible, shifting the onus to governments to justify encroachments. (1997) validated oral histories as evidence of pre-sovereignty occupation, defining as encompassing exclusive use for economic and cultural purposes, while imposing a duty to consult on potential infringements even absent proven title. The 2004 Haida Nation v. decision expanded this to a standalone duty to consult and accommodate, applicable before rights are adjudicated. Culminating in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. (2014), the Court for the first time declared to specific territory, rejecting small-site specific claims and affirming that title holders possess power over developments incompatible with obligations. Recent judicial affirmations include the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada v. Attorney General of , unanimously upholding Indigenous jurisdiction over child and family services under section 35, invalidating federal legislation that imposed unilateral standards without consent. In 2025, developments emphasized negotiation over litigation, as seen in Supreme Court guidance favoring deep consultation in resource projects amid UNDRIP implementation. These advances have facilitated self-government agreements in jurisdictions like the , where 11 final agreements grant law-making powers over land and resources. Despite these gains, persistent conflicts arise from interpretive disputes, incomplete consultations, and unresolved claims, often escalating to blockades or litigation costing millions. The 2021 decision in R. v. Desautel extended section 35 rights to non-resident Indigenous groups, such as U.S.-based tribes, enabling hunting claims across borders and prompting concerns over transboundary title assertions. In resource sectors, alleged breaches of the duty to consult have fueled opposition to projects; for instance, hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation contested Coastal GasLink pipeline approvals in 2019–2020, leading to nationwide rail disruptions despite elected band council consents, with courts upholding permits but highlighting procedural shortfalls. High-profile 2025 cases underscore ongoing tensions. The Supreme Court's ruling in v. , following a 513-day —the longest in Canadian history—addressed and fisheries allocations, reinforcing negotiation imperatives but exposing evidentiary burdens on claimants. Similarly, Musqueam Indian Band's protracted litigation ended in 2025 with a decision limiting title and claims, attributed by the band to evidentiary challenges against historical records. In , First Nations in May 2025 threatened "conflict on the ground" over proposed mining legislation perceived to infringe treaty without adequate consultation, filing suits against federal and provincial unilateralism. These disputes reflect systemic issues: of approximately 70 comprehensive claims, fewer than half are settled, with litigation persisting due to mismatched understandings of versus accommodation, often prioritizing judicial resolution over treaty-based processes amid economic stakes exceeding billions in delayed infrastructure. Critics from resource-dependent perspectives argue expansive interpretations hinder national development, while Indigenous advocates contend governments evade deep , perpetuating adversarial dynamics.

Public Opinion Shifts and Economic Indicators

Recent polls indicate a growing division among Canadians regarding the special status of Indigenous peoples. An August 2025 Angus Reid Institute survey found that 55% of respondents believe Indigenous nations hold a unique status in Canada, while 45% favor equal treatment under the law for all citizens, reflecting skepticism toward distinct rights amid ongoing debates over funding and governance. Similarly, a June 2025 Innovative Research Group poll reported that support for distinct Indigenous rights to protect culture and heritage rose to 54%, up 6 percentage points from prior years, yet a plurality expressed concerns over fiscal accountability, with over 80% advocating for public disclosure of First Nations spending. These shifts coincide with broader fatigue on reconciliation efforts; a September 2025 National Post/Leger poll revealed that a slight majority of Canadians prioritize other national issues over Indigenous reconciliation, and 30% view federal funding to First Nations as excessive. On reconciliation progress, opinions remain mixed but show incremental positivity in awareness. A September 2025 Environics Institute survey, part of the annual , indicated that most Canadians perceive improving relations with Indigenous peoples, with growing knowledge of residential schools, though two-to-one majorities believe governments have not advanced sufficiently. A July 2025 poll cited 55% viewing as making good progress on , varying by region and demographics, yet tied to demands for measurable outcomes rather than symbolic gestures. Economic indicators for Indigenous populations reveal persistent disparities despite substantial federal investments. Federal spending on Indigenous programs nearly tripled from $11 billion in 2015 to over $32 billion projected for 2025, yet living standards have improved only modestly, attributable largely to broader economic trends rather than policy efficacy. data from the 2023 Canadian Income Survey show 17.5% of Indigenous people in provinces living below the line, nearly double the non-Indigenous rate, with Indigenous groups facing elevated deep income and food insecurity rates of 28.6%. The Economic Account tracks contributions to and , but gaps endure: on-reserve lags significantly behind off-reserve and non-Indigenous averages, per 2021 updates extended into recent analyses. These indicators underscore causal challenges, including remote geography, structures, and dependency on transfers, which have not closed socioeconomic divides despite funding escalation. The February 2025 Indigenous Economic Progress Report highlights high school completion rates improving off-reserve but stagnating on-reserve, correlating with disparities where median Indigenous household remains 20-30% below national averages. Public opinion shifts increasingly link to these metrics, with demands for transparency and results-oriented reforms gaining traction amid evidence of inefficient .

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.