Summary

Social inclusion and communities at risk: Canada’s Aboriginal peoples

Friday March 28, 2003 - Plenary

Participants rose from their chairs to applaud Cindy Blackstock’s stirring presentation on social inclusion of Aboriginal people. Blackstock told the audience that the people of Canada had social systems, values and a common philosophy of human rights long before European settlers arrived in North America. She presented details and statistics on the exclusion of Aboriginal people from their homes and their lives in the margins—her intention, she said, was to shock and horrify the audience, and to awaken our consciousness to social exclusion and the ways of knowing that perpetuate it

Blackstock, Executive Director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, presented details of her study in BC that showed that the voluntary sector is not engaged with First Nations people. This is partly due to most Canadians’ ignorance of history, and the different concepts of volunteerism between non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people. Closer links between the Aboriginal community and other Canadians will depend in part on support for First Nations concepts of volunteerism, knowledge and information sharing, appropriate approaches to First Nations and meeting and reconciling with them.

Blackstock’s moving presentation closed with a visual display of inspiring words and pictures, accompanied by the song Tears Are Not Enough.

HRDC research analyst Dominique Fleury presented details of her study on the economic performance of off-reserve Aboriginal people. Persistent poverty was compared across five groups at high risk for poverty, including Aboriginal people in urban settings. The study sought to understand why this group has recently been more likely than other high-risk groups to escape persistent poverty.

Off-reserve First Nations do not necessarily have higher education than members of other high-risk groups, and they do not leave their high-risk group—in fact, they are often members of several. But Fleury said their integration into the job market is more frequent and more stable. Non-status Indians were highly represented in the group with the best situation with regard to long-term poverty.

While there has been little research on Aboriginal people living on- or off-reserve, Fleury said, it seems that those living off-reserve have experienced better workforce integration than those in other at-risk groups.

However, Fleury notes that with regards to Aboriginal people living in long term poverty, further research is required to determine the differences in the situations of those living on and those living off reserve. In addition, more analysis needs to be done to ascertain the impact that movement on- and off- reserve, has on these situations.

Harvey Stevens, senior policy analyst with the government of Manitoba, led the audience through his paper on social exclusion of the working-age Aboriginal population in his province. As well as describing the degree of social exclusion, it explored reasons for the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and sought additional research questions.

Stevens’ research showed a dramatic difference in social exclusion among the three Aboriginal subgroups (Métis, status Indian and Non-status Indian). Taken as a whole, Aboriginal people have higher rates of return to education, but at each level of education there is still a gap in employment levels between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. He found that changing the level of education reduces that gap somewhat, and increasing education and employment reduces it even further.

Interesting questions for further research would be the reasons for the difference among Aboriginal subgroups, and reasons for the gap, given equal levels of education.

Facilitator/provocateur Wayne Helgason invited comments and questions from the audience.

A participant noted that a disproportionate share of poor people are incarcerated in Canada, and invited the presenters to comment. Helgason said Justice Hamilton in Manitoba had released a study indicating that 95% of people in prison had been involved with the child welfare system. Stevens said Aboriginal people are more represented in studies of low income. Blackstock raised the question of how Aboriginal prisoners could be supported to maintain a nurturing relationship with their children.

A participant emphasized Blackstock’s point that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people must talk to one another—straight talk. With regard to Stevens’ presentation, the participant pointed out that the cost of pro-active action is not always presented as positive, yet it is a net benefit to all Canadians.

Helgason said it is important to consider the policy implications of the diversity within the Aboriginal community, particularly when Aboriginal people are asked to “speak with one voice”.

A participant spoke of breaking the cycle that is set up and repeated because people are uncomfortable with differences—he mentioned slavery, the Second World War Holocaust, the Turks versus the Kurds. People must make “difference” something to be celebrated rather than feared and learn to truly walk the talk.

Blackstock replied that people focus too often on being comfortable. The place that feels uncomfortable is the place for learning and understanding.

A participant asked about Stevens’ use of the category of self-reported Aboriginal people, rather than the category of people of ethnic origin in the census data. Stevens reported that the latter category includes people whose ancestors may have been Aboriginal, but who do not consider themselves Aboriginal. It is a cleaner measure to look at people who think of themselves as Aboriginal.

Asked by a participant about her definition of universal services as the equal treatment of unequals, Blackstock said she wanted to shake up the idea that society is meeting the needs of diversified groups. Child welfare organizations have to work under provincial legislation, so services are standard. But the questions must be asked: are they providing for the needs of the people they are serving? And are they providing for the reality of the situations they work in?

A participant commented on the policy implications of Blackstock’s recollection of her mother saying she was tired of being marginalized, and Fleury’s discovery that one way of escaping poverty was to leave the high-risk group. She asked presenters about assimilation. Blackstock responded that if people humanize each other and have more conversations, policy will follow.

Three participants from Nunavut said Inuit are not the same as First Nations, and underscored the lack of research pertaining to the Inuit. One pointed out that when Inuit drop out of high school, they often go out on the land and provide for their people in a valuable way, but this is not captured in the research. She added that Inuit are not highly represented in post-secondary education because going to a southern university is like going to a different country for Inuit—and because it is not their tradition for parents to provide for this education. The participants stressed that Inuit as well as other Aboriginal people must be a part of all policy, research and legislation.

Back to Reporting

For more information about the conference, contact:
 
Sarah Zgraggen
The Willow Group
Tel: (613) 722-8796;
Fax: (613) 729-6206;
e-mail: szgraggen@thewillowgroup.com