Reconciliation isn’t just about reserves
Like all Canadians, we are appalled that Victorian-era and subsequent politicians believed separating Indigenous children from their families and sending them to residential schools would solve the “Indian problem.” The recent discovery of graves near these schools has generated widespread media attention. But acknowledging the racism of the past is not an agenda for the future. Apology and outrage are no substitute for desperately needed policies and resources that can meaningfully improve people’s lives.
The federal government has placed a high priority on reconciliation with First Nation peoples. Its core strategy is to strengthen treaty rights and governing capacity. Subject to qualifications, this is a reasonable agenda for those wanting to live on-reserve. It is not a reasonable agenda for the majority of First Nation people who do not live on-reserve.
Through the 20th century, many First Nation people migrated from their reserves. While there has been some return migration, the majority of Indigenous people now live in a city. Why is this migration taking place? The most comprehensive survey of expectations among urban First Nation and Métis is Environics Institute’s Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study. In each of ten cities across Canada, random samples of 250 people agreed to lengthy one-on-one interviews. Respondents referred to many problems, including racist incidents. Nonetheless, 65 per cent liked living in their city and said they were able to maintain their Indigenous identity while doing so. Their reasons for migrating are what we might expect: the opportunity for better jobs for themselves and better schools for their children; a desire to be close to extended-family members already in urban communities; escape from problems on-reserve.
While the majority did like living in their city, the problems they face are severe. The average educational, employment, income, and wellness outcomes of Indigenous people living off-reserve are much lower than outcomes of their non-indigenous neighbours. Provision of high-quality social services to all residents, including First Nation peoples living off-reserve, is a major provincial responsibility. Given our own expertise, we emphasize education improvements.
Effective Indigenous education must obviously include quality instruction in core subjects like reading, math, and science. In addition, teachers must appreciate the Indigenous experience and be trained to work with Indigenous youth. For a variety of reasons, to succeed academically, Indigenous youth require more support on average than others. Some provinces are not adequately pursuing this responsibility, and Ottawa’s on-reserve focus has not helped.
By far the most serious Indigenous/non-indigenous education, employment, income, and wellness gaps are in the Prairies, home to nearly half of Canada’s Indigenous population. Based on the 2016 census, 92 per cent of non-indigenous Canadians had completed at least high school by their early 20s. In British Columbia, the province with the best First Nation education outcomes, 81 per cent of young off-reserve First Nation people had completed high school, compared to only 70 per cent among on-reserve youth. In Manitoba, the province with the weakest outcomes, those numbers were just 61 per cent and 36 per cent, respectively. From 1981 to 2016, the national First Nation employment rate rose a couple of percentage points, but it remains roughly two thirds the non-indigenous rate. In the Prairie provinces, there was no change from 1981 to 2016. Probably not coincidentally, Indigenous suicide and homicide rates are roughly three times higher in the Prairies than in the other provinces.
The first provincial government to attempt a comprehensive reconciliation agenda was Allan Blakeney’s in Saskatchewan in the 1970s. Among his initiatives were affirmative employment programs and the creation of native-dominated municipal governments in northern Saskatchewan. Given Blakeney’s engagement with Indigenous matters, Brian Mulroney appointed him to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which reported in 1996. Blakeney’s view, revealed to one of us (Richards) in conversation, was that roughly a quarter of First Nation people truly wanted the lifestyle available on self-governing reserves, and that should be respected. Another quarter successfully engaged in mainstream Canadian society. As for the half in the middle, they migrated between reserve and town and faced many challenges in both contexts. During his travels across Canada with his fellow RCAP commissioners Blakeney eventually concluded the commission was not interested in concrete discussion about education and employment, key requirements for First Nation success in cities. His frustration was such that he finally decided to resign before the commission reported.
The attention devoted by the federal and provincial governments and First Nation leadership to the resolution of First Nation rights and powers is important. But it does little to address the needs of the majority of Indigenous people who live in Canada’s cities. Tragically, Blakeney’s critique is as relevant in the 2020s as it was in the 1990s.
High-quality education is at least as essential for Indigenous people off-reserve as it is for all Canadians. Provincial governments, which are responsible for off-reserve education, need to redouble their efforts so a generation of Indigenous students is not left behind.
Financial Post Barry Anderson is an education consultant living in Victoria, B.C. Dale Eisler is a research fellow in the University of Regina’s Johnson-shoyama public policy school. Harvey Mccue is a prominent First Nation educator. Michael Mendelson held many senior positions in provincial governments in Manitoba and Ontario. John Richards is an economist teaching public policy at Simon Fraser University, where Marvin Shaffer is a consulting economist and adjunct professor.
APOLOGY AND OUTRAGE ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR DESPERATELY NEEDED POLICIES.