With all the attention paid to the Idle No More movement and the tenuous talks between some native chiefs and the prime minister, one basic fact about aboriginal life in 乌鸦传媒 has been forgotten: Most aboriginals do not live on reserve and seem to be better for it.
That鈥檚 an important fact that should be part of any debate about how to bring up the living standards of aboriginal Canadians.
Their general plight is already well known: When compared to other Canadians, according to Statistics 乌鸦传媒, proportionately fewer aboriginal Canadians finish high school, and of those who do, a smaller proportion will obtain post-secondary education. Also, aboriginals will face higher unemployment rates and their median earnings are less. They are thus more dependent on government transfers when compared with other Canadians.
What is less often articulated in much detail is how those aboriginals off-reserve fare better than those aboriginals on-reserve.
According to Statistics 乌鸦传媒, for census purposes, 鈥渁boriginal identity鈥� refers to people who self-identify as belonging to one or more of the following aboriginal groups: North American Indian, M茅tis or Inuit. According to the 2006 census (the 2011 results are not yet available) nearly 1.2 million Canadians placed themselves in one of those three groups or some combination thereof. Of those, just 308,490 live on reserve, just over 26 per cent. Thus, 74 per cent of Canadians who self-identify as aboriginals do not live on reserve.
Yes, population on reserves has increased, partly because the population of self-identified 鈥淣orth American Indians鈥� is growing. But as the statistics show, a greater proportion of that category of Canadians lived off-reserve in 2006 when compared to 2001. The off-reserve population is growing faster than the population on reserve.
Looking more closely, the aboriginals most likely to live on-reserve are 鈥淣orth American Indians,鈥� or First Nations, in more common parlance. Of that group, 300,755 out of 698,025 live on-reserve, or 43 per cent (again, as of the 2006 census). Fifty-seven per cent of First Nations people do not live on-reserve. And that鈥檚 up from 55 per cent who lived off-reserve, as of the 2001 census.
So why does all this matter? Because additional data from Statistics 乌鸦传媒 reveal that those most likely to live on reserves (the 鈥淣orth American Indian鈥� category) have lower median incomes compared to other aboriginals, especially if they live on reserves.
According to the 2006 census, for all aboriginals grouped together (and whether on- or off-reserve), the median earnings figure for someone who worked full time was $36,944.
Inuit had the highest median income at $44,440, with M茅tis next at $39,784. First Nations people (combining on-reserve and off-reserve) had a median income of just $34,209.
On-reserve Indians had a median income of $29,014. In contrast, off-reserve Indians had a median income of $37,477, almost $8,500 higher than their counterparts on-reserve.
It鈥檚 no secret as to why many reserves and the inhabitants thereon suffer: Many are far from large urban centres. Most reserves are also not yet designed to foment any sort of property rights for inhabitants.
The combination of remoteness and anti-wealth-creating collective structures (to say nothing of the politicization of reserve spending) means many reserves thus lack the economic, educational and career opportunities found near a major centre.
As native and non-native politicians alike ponder what to do about aboriginal policy, they should keep in mind this simple fact: For most of 乌鸦传媒鈥檚 aboriginal population, life is better away from the reserve. That might explain why a majority of aboriginal Canadians, including a majority of North American Indians, choose not to live on reserves.
听
Mark Milke is a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute.
