Annual Report to Parliament 2020

Why measurement is important

First, continued measurement helps determine whether progress is being achieved over time.

Second, ongoing measurement can help demonstrate whether existing programs and policies are properly designed and resourced, and if there are program and policy gaps that must be addressed.

Third, by tracking program and policy performance and identifying gaps, measurement can help ensure accountability of those who design and implement those programs and policies.

Finally, measurement calls for reflection to define, in a clear and transparent way, what progress means. By stimulating conversation and inviting challenge, the iterative process of defining how to measure progress focuses attention on the things that truly matter.

What is important to measure

The socioeconomic and health^{Footnote 13} dimensions addressed in this report, including related indicators, were selected based on a review of the various socioeconomic wellness frameworks being used around the world^{Footnote 14}, in addition to numerous indicators and frameworks related to well-being and progress that First Nation, Inuit, and Métis governments and organizations have developed and shared with the public online. Where possible, the specific indicators used to measure the different dimensions were based on established national or international methodologies.

Examining gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations is an important way of putting numbers in context. Without a basis for comparison, raw statistics are difficult to interpret. As we will see shortly, for example, the employment rate for Métis is about 70%. It is only by looking at this number in relation to the employment rate for the non-Indigenous population (about 76%), that one can get a sense that the rate for Métis is not as high as it could be, and that there may be a need to address systemic barriers, or enduring effects of past injustices, to support Métis to achieve their employment goals.

It is sometimes suggested that focusing on gaps between different populations is inappropriate as it potentially involves an implicit value judgement. It suggests that the lower-scoring population should aspire to the level of the higher-scoring population on a particular indicator, even if the indicator is of little importance to the lower-scoring population. This is a fair critique, and is why the current report focuses on key socioeconomic indicators that appear regularly in Indigenous wellness frameworks, as well as being recognized internationally as important to quality of life in most cultural contexts. The inclusion of additional indicators, the importance of which might vary across Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, will be done in close consultation with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis for subsequent iterations of this annual report. One exception is knowledge of Indigenous languages, which was included in this inaugural report since it is a well-established priority for many Indigenous peoples.

The indicators

The complete set of indicators addressed in this chapter is listed below, with analyses of each indicator presented in turn in the pages that follow.

Some notes on the approach and methodology

Limitations of the data
Data for the first five sets of indicators (from Income through Housing) are taken from the Census of Canada. This robust source of socioeconomic information remains the cornerstone of data because of its unparalleled ability to support distinctions-based, cross-time analyses for all of Canada, including reserves and the territories.^{Footnote 22}

Despite its richness, the Census has some important limitations. For example, Indigenous people are classified in the Census as Indigenous or not based on self-identification, which can be imperfect given variations in how respondents interpret or understand the Indigenous identity questions, as well as their individual choices respecting whether and how to self-identify as an Indigenous person. In addition, the Census does not capture all First Nation communities. In 2016, there were a total of 14 First Nations communities that were not included, as enumeration was either not permitted, or interrupted before it could be completed. Another important limitation is that the Census of Canada includes a relatively narrow range of socioeconomic indicators, and does not capture the various other dimensions of well-being that are important from an Indigenous perspective.

As we move beyond the Census to seek other sources of data on health, justice, and infrastructure, the persistent gaps in data on Indigenous populations become more evident. In many cases, data are not available on all distinctions groups or geographies, or the data are older and not available across time. Where such limitations exist, the best data available are used to illustrate the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. A section at the end of this chapter is devoted to the gaps in Indigenous data, steps that have been taken to address them, and what further efforts can be made to ensure that all partners and stakeholders have the data required to support services to Indigenous peoples, and the transfer of services responsibilities to Indigenous control.

The analysis

To the extent possible, this analysis is distinctions-based and includes data for the past 15 years, to illustrate how socioeconomic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations have evolved.

Data are presented for the three main distinctions groups: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. First Nations data are further disaggregated, given the significant differences in socioeconomic outcomes that are known to exist among the following groups: Registered Indians living on reserve, Registered Indians living off reserve, and Non-Status Indians.

Regional and gender^{Footnote 23}-based analyses are also provided. Notably, some very small populations of First Nations and Métis in the territories are also the populations experiencing the largest gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population. Because statistics based on very small populations are less reliable, and can create a skewed image of overall trends, one option would be to exclude them from broader analyses and/or discuss them separately. In the interest of transparency, however, it was decided to retain these small populations as part of the general analysis. Readers are encouraged to interpret statistics for small populations with caution, especially when data are further broken down by gender, age or other variables.^{Footnote 24}

Income – median income

Median income is a well-established measure of material well-being. Although it does not capture an individual's assets, median income is one way of estimating a person's wealth.

Figure 3 below compares median income for the working age population (aged 25-64) across population groups. The gap in median income is largest for Registered Indians living on reserve, whose median income is less than half that of the non-Indigenous population. Registered Indians living off reserve, Non-Status Indians, and Inuit each have a median income that is between about 75% and 80% of the non-Indigenous population median income. Métis have a median income that is nearly on par with that of non-Indigenous Canadians.

Text alternative for Figure 3: Median income, 2015, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Median income	$20,357	$32,553	$34,458	$33,135	$40,814	$42,930

Figure 4 below shows how median income^{Footnote 25} has evolved over time. The most striking reduction in the income gap occurred among the Métis, though the gap also narrowed for Registered Indians living off reserve and Non-Status Indians. The median income gaps observed for Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit, however, changed little.

Text alternative for Figure 4: Median income, 2005 – 2015, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
2005	$16,441	$25,671	$28,501	$28,729	$32,601	$38,731
2010	$16,905	$30,021	$32,286	$31,767	$37,482	$41,225
2015	$20,357	$32,553	$34,458	$33,135	$40,814	$42,930

Region matters

The national picture of the median income gap between First Nations and the non-Indigenous population can conceal important regional differences. As Figure 5 illustrates, for example, Registered Indians living on reserve in Newfoundland and Labrador have a median income that is about 80% that of the non-Indigenous population, while Registered Indians living on reserve in Saskatchewan have a median income that is only 31% as large as that of Saskatchewan's non-Indigenous population – a difference of more than $34,000 annually.

Text alternative for Figure 5: Median income, 2015, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	$33,088	$36,853	$37,310	$41,263
Prince Edward Island	$26,048	$31,538	$29,142	$38,427
Nova Scotia	$18,778	$35,577	$32,827	$39,185
New Brunswick	$22,209	$31,807	$29,024	$38,064
Quebec	$31,964	$34,312	$34,590	$40,856
Ontario	$22,708	$32,708	$32,643	$42,564
Manitoba	$15,973	$28,061	$33,972	$43,286
Saskatchewan	$15,367	$30,980	$34,016	$49,418
Alberta	$19,512	$38,262	$45,865	$53,306
British Columbia	$19,613	$29,680	$33,477	$41,430
Yukon	N/A	$39,625	$52,538	$58,757
Northwest Territories	$27,072	$38,555	$61,362	$82,965
Nunavut	N/A	$83,456	$92,416	$106,569

Regional differences are less pronounced among Métis, whose median income ranges from 79% (in Nunavut) to 107% (in Newfoundland and Labrador) that of the non-Indigenous populations in those regions (Figure 6). It is worth noting that in Nunavut, where the most dramatic gap appears, only 140 people identified as Métis on the 2016 Census.

Text alternative for Figure 6: Median income, 2015, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	$44,224	$41,263
Prince Edward Island	$35,866	$38,427
Nova Scotia	$37,640	$39,185
New Brunswick	$33,282	$38,064
Quebec	$36,373	$40,856
Ontario	$40,197	$42,564
Manitoba	$41,385	$43,286
Saskatchewan	$43,696	$49,418
Alberta	$47,419	$53,306
British Columbia	$37,487	$41,430
Yukon	$52,423	$58,757
Northwest Territories	$76,515	$82,965
Nunavut	$83,712	$106,569

Figure 7 below illustrates the regional variations in the median income gap between Inuit and the non-Indigenous population. The gaps in each of the four regions of Inuit Nunangat are quite wide, with Inuit receiving between 28.3% (in Nunavut) and 49.8% (in Nunatsiavut) of what the non-Indigenous population receives. It is worth noting that these large gaps reflect the high median incomes of the non-Indigenous population living in Inuit Nunangat. Outside of Inuit Nunangat, the non-Indigenous population's median income is much lower, and the gap is comparatively narrow.

Text alternative for Figure 7: Median income, 2015, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Nunatsiavut (Labrador)	Nunavik (Northern Quebec)	Inuvialuit Region (NWT and Yukon)	Nunavut	Outside of Inuit Nunangat
Inuit	$31,792	$35,524	$31,424	$30,190	$36,116
Non-Indigenous	$63,872	$81,408	$94,362	$106,569	$42,921

Gender matters^{Footnote 26}

For the non-Indigenous population in Canada, the median income for men is higher than the median income for women by approximately $13,500. As Figure 8 below illustrates, this pattern is different for Indigenous populations, particularly among Inuit, where men and women have a similar median income, and among Registered Indians living on reserve, where women's median income is more than $6,000 higher than that of men's. As a consequence, when one focused on data for men specifically, the gap in median income is particularly large: Registered Indian men living on reserve have a median income that is only about one third as large as the median income for non-Indigenous men; and Inuit men have a median income that is about two-thirds as large.

Text alternative for Figure 8: Median income, 2015, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by gender, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Male	$17,042	$37,882	$40,707	$32,560	$50,004	$50,523
Female	$23,296	$29,602	$30,180	$33,434	$34,509	$36,997

Income – Low income measure

The low income measure is one way of assessing the level of poverty in a population. A person is considered to be living in a low income situation if they are part of a household whose total income (after tax) is less than half of the national median household income, adjusted for household size. The low income threshold in 2015 was $22,133 for a single person, and $44,266 for a family of four.^{Footnote 27}

Figure 9 below compares the percentage of the population who were living in a low income situation in 2015.

Text alternative for Figure 9: Percentage living in a low income situation, 2015, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Percentage living in a low income situation	47.7%	30.3%	25.2%	22.3%	17.3%	13.8%

Members of all Indigenous groups are more likely than the non-Indigenous population to be living in a situation of low income. Registered Indians living on reserve are 3.5 times more likely.

Figure 10 below illustrates that the likelihood of living in a low income situation decreased between 2005 and 2015 for each Indigenous group, particularly Registered Indians living off reserve. Since the likelihood for the non-Indigenous population stayed stable at around 14%, the gaps also narrowed for each Indigenous group – by as much as 6.6 percentage points for Registered Indians living off reserve.

Text alternative for Figure 10: Percentage living in a low income situation, 2005-2015, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
2005	50.7%	36.7%	27.5%	26.3%	21.0%	13.6%
2010	54.1%	31.9%	25.3%	22.9%	19.5%	14.5%
2015	47.7%	30.3%	25.2%	22.3%	17.3%	13.8%

Region matters

Once again, wide variation is evident across the provinces and territories with respect to the percentage of populations living in low income situations. Manitoba and Saskatchewan stand out as having the largest gaps between non-Indigenous and First Nations populations (Figure 11).

Text alternative for Figure 11: Percentage living in a low income situation, 2015, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	14.1%	17.5%	18.3%	15.3%
Prince Edward Island	34.6%	31.1%	35.0%	16.7%
Nova Scotia	55.3%	20.7%	24.5%	17.1%
New Brunswick	47.8%	26.4%	33.7%	16.8%
Quebec	26.3%	25.7%	21.3%	14.5%
Ontario	43.1%	27.4%	26.2%	14.2%
Manitoba	59.6%	44.1%	38.9%	13.1%
Saskatchewan	59.5%	39.6%	37.5%	10.7%
Alberta	48.4%	24.1%	19.6%	8.8%
British Columbia	42.3%	31.1%	24.9%	15.1%
Yukon	N/A	24.5%	19.1%	7.4%
Northwest Territories	19.3%	20.2%	19.4%	4.3%
Nunavut	N/A	11.8%	12.5%	2.4%

With the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, Métis in all regions are more likely than the non-Indigenous population to be in a low income situation: ranging from a difference of only about one percentage point in Nova Scotia, to seven percentage points in Saskatchewan (Figure 12).

Text alternative for Figure 12: Percentage living in a low income situation, 2015, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	12.6%	15.3%
Prince Edward Island	20.6%	16.7%
Nova Scotia	18.2%	17.1%
New Brunswick	23.7%	16.8%
Quebec	19.8%	14.5%
Ontario	17.8%	14.2%
Manitoba	18.3%	13.1%
Saskatchewan	17.7%	10.7%
Alberta	13.3%	8.8%
British Columbia	18.3%	15.1%
Yukon	11.3%	7.4%
Northwest Territories	8.6%	4.3%
Nunavut	7.1%	2.4%

As Figure 13 illustrates, the low income gap between Inuit and the non-Indigenous population outside Inuit Nunangat is similar to the national gap that was shown in Figure 9. The gaps are much higher in the four Inuit regions, however, where the percentage of Inuit in a low income situation exceeds that of the non-Indigenous population by between 12.6 (in Nunavik) 23.6 (in Nunavut) percentage points.

Text alternative for Figure 13: Percentage living in a low income situation, 2015, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Nunatsiavut (Labrador)	Nunavik (Northern Quebec)	Inuvialuit Region (NWT and Yukon)	Nunavut	Outside of Inuit Nunangat
Inuit	22.5%	14.4%	24.0%	26.0%	20.8%
Non-Indigenous	4.8%	1.8%	7.0%	2.4%	13.8%

A focus on gender

Figure 14 illustrates that, although there is a greater tendency to be living in a low income situation among women than among men, differences are relatively small. Consequently, the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous males do not differ in a marked or consistent way from the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous females.

Text alternative for Figure 14: Percentage living in a low income situation, 2015, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, by gender, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Male	47.7%	28.4%	24.3%	22.1%	16.0%	13.1%
Female	47.7%	31.9%	26.1%	22.5%	18.5%	14.5%

Employment – employment rate

Employment rate is one way of measuring a population's economic health, and is simply the percentage of the working age population (aged 25-64) who have a job.

Figure 15 demonstrates that all Indigenous populations – particularly Registered Indians living on reserve – have lower employment rates than the non-Indigenous population.

Text alternative for Figure 15: Employment rate, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Employment rate	46.9%	60.2%	66.1%	57.4%	70.4%	76.0%

Figure 16 below demonstrates that employment rates have been relatively stable over time. The gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population narrowed slightly for Registered Indians living off reserve, Non-Status Indians, and Métis, but increased slightly for Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit.

Text alternative for Figure 16: Employment rate, 2001 – 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
2001	48.1%	56.4%	63.3%	59.0%	67.9%	75.1%
2006	50.2%	61.8%	67.4%	59.7%	71.5%	76.3%
2011	46.8%	61.2%	67.0%	58.6%	71.6%	75.8%
2016	46.9%	60.2%	66.1%	57.4%	70.4%	76.0%

Region matters

Employment rates for First Nations vary widely across the provinces and territories. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories stand out as having the largest gaps between non-Indigenous and First Nations populations (Figure 17). In Saskatchewan, for example, the gaps are 42.7, 27.0, and 21.6 percentage points wide for Registered Indians on reserve, Registered Indians off reserve, and Non-Status Indians, respectively.

Text alternative for Figure 17: Employment rate, 2016, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	50.2%	60.8%	61.1%	64.9%
Prince Edward Island	50.0%	61.3%	61.3%	74.5%
Nova Scotia	47.8%	67.2%	64.9%	72.0%
New Brunswick	46.3%	62.2%	58.5%	71.3%
Quebec	55.2%	63.3%	68.6%	75.7%
Ontario	52.7%	62.3%	64.5%	76.0%
Manitoba	40.0%	52.4%	64.8%	79.6%
Saskatchewan	38.0%	53.7%	59.1%	80.7%
Alberta	43.6%	62.4%	69.5%	77.7%
British Columbia	51.9%	61.5%	69.3%	75.8%
Yukon	N/A	58.7%	77.5%	83.5%
Northwest Territories	51.9%	59.3%	66.7%	87.7%
Nunavut	N/A	85.7%	81.8%	92.2%

As shown in Figure 18, the employment rate gap for Métis is up to ten percentage points wide in some regions (New Brunswick, Quebec, and Saskatchewan), and in other regions, however, the gap is very small. In Prince Edward Island, the employment rate for Métis is actually slightly higher than that of the non-Indigenous population.

Text alternative for Figure 18: Employment rate, 2016, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	56.9%	64.9%
Prince Edward Island	75.8%	74.5%
Nova Scotia	71.3%	72.0%
New Brunswick	61.3%	71.3%
Quebec	65.9%	75.7%
Ontario	69.8%	76.0%
Manitoba	73.7%	79.6%
Saskatchewan	71.6%	80.7%
Alberta	71.0%	77.7%
British Columbia	71.7%	75.8%
Yukon	80.2%	83.5%
Northwest Territories	80.3%	87.7%
Nunavut	85.7%	92.2%

Figure 19 illustrates that the employment rate gaps for Inuit are smallest – at 15.5 percentage points wide – outside Inuit Nunangat. Inside Inuit Nunangat, the smallest gap is in Inuvialuit Settlement Region (29.1 percentage points), and the largest in Nunavut (38.5 percentage points).

Text alternative for Figure 19: Employment rate, 2016, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Nunatsiavut (Labrador)	Nunavik (Northern Quebec)	Inuvialuit Region (NWT and Yukon)	Nunavut	Outside of Inuit Nunangat
Inuit	48.2%	63.7%	58.8%	53.7%	60.5%
Non-Indigenous	77.4%	94.6%	87.9%	92.2%	76.0%

A focus on gender

The employment rate gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations is larger among males than among females. For example, while the gap between female Registered Indians living on reserve and non-Indigenous females was 23.9 percentage points wide, the gap when similarly compared among males, was 34.5 percentage points wide (Figure 20).

Text alternative for Figure 20: Employment rate, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by gender, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Male	45.5%	63.8%	68.9%	56.9%	72.6%	80.0%
Female	48.2%	57.3%	63.7%	57.8%	68.4%	72.1%

Employment – employment income

Median employment income complements employment rate, as it is a common way of assessing the quality of jobs held by the employed population.

Figure 21 illustrates substantial gaps in median employment income between the non-Indigenous population and First Nations and Inuit.

Text alternative for Figure 21: Median employment income, 2015, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Median employment income	$23,298	$35,390	$36,457	$32,673	$41,440	$42,660

Figure 22 below shows how median employment income (adjusted to account for inflation) has evolved over time. Although median employment income has increased for each group, the gap relative to the non-Indigenous population has decreased for Registered Indians living off reserve, Non-Status Indians, and Métis only. The median employment income gaps for Inuit and Registered Indians living on reserve have changed little.

Text alternative for Figure 22: Median employment income, 2005 – 2015, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
2005	$20,954	$29,650	$32,156	$30,336	$34,762	$40,137
2010	$24,509	$35,282	$35,959	$32,866	$39,910	$42,974
2015	$23,298	$35,390	$36,457	$32,673	$41,440	$42,660

Region matters

The national median employment income gaps can conceal important regional differences. As Figure 23 illustrates, for example, Registered Indians living on reserve in Quebec have a median employment income that is about 74% that of the non-Indigenous population, whereas Registered Indians living on reserve in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have a median income that are only 44% as large as that of the non-Indigenous population in those provinces – differences of $26,172 and $20,485, respectively. The largest gap for First Nations is for the small group of approximately 130 Registered Indians living on reserve in the Northwest Territories, at more than $59,000.

Text alternative for Figure 23: Median employment income, 2015, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	$20,928	$36,409	$37,668	$40,816
Prince Edward Island	$16,960	$26,755	$27,301	$34,927
Nova Scotia	$23,509	$35,178	$33,450	$37,979
New Brunswick	$16,374	$28,722	$29,651	$36,859
Quebec	$28,605	$33,960	$33,718	$38,744
Ontario	$25,567	$37,774	$36,388	$43,879
Manitoba	$20,137	$30,940	$34,229	$42,332
Saskatchewan	$20,964	$32,517	$38,670	$47,136
Alberta	$23,910	$42,185	$48,350	$52,838
British Columbia	$22,624	$32,363	$35,395	$41,574
Yukon	N/A	$40,295	$52,582	$56,389
Northwest Territories	$22,080	$40,463	$71,680	$81,106
Nunavut	N/A	$77,312	$82,176	$104,294

As Figure 24 illustrates, the small employment income gap that is seen for Métis at the national level is similarly small in most regions. New Brunswick and Nunavut^{Footnote 28} are exceptions, where median employment incomes for Métis are 80% and 81% that of the non-Indigenous population in those regions, respectively. By contrast, the median income of the approximately 6,625 Métis in Newfoundland and Labrador is more than $3,000 higher than that of the non-Indigenous population in the province.

Text alternative for Figure 24: Median employment income, 2015, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	$44,107	$40,816
Prince Edward Island	$31,998	$34,927
Nova Scotia	$34,810	$37,979
New Brunswick	$29,406	$36,859
Quebec	$34,746	$38,744
Ontario	$42,299	$43,879
Manitoba	$41,929	$42,332
Saskatchewan	$44,594	$47,136
Alberta	$48,658	$52,838
British Columbia	$38,104	$41,574
Yukon	$55,724	$56,389
Northwest Territories	$77,381	$81,106
Nunavut	$84,736	$104,294

Figure 25 shows that, outside Inuit Nunangat, the employment income gap for Inuit is relatively narrow, with Inuit earning 91% of the employment income earned by the non-Indigenous population. Within Inuit Nunangat, however, the median employment income for Inuit is between about one half (in Nunatsiavut) and one third (in Nunavut) that of the non-Indigenous population.

Text alternative for Figure 25: Median employment income, 2015, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Nunatsiavut (Labrador)	Nunavik (Northern Quebec)	Inuvialuit Region (NWT and Yukon)	Nunavut	Outside of Inuit Nunangat
Inuit	$30,272	$28,565	$30,304	$30,039	$38,707
Non-Indigenous	$58,368	$79,680	$94,400	$104,294	$42,650

A focus on gender

Figure 26 illustrates that, Métis excepted, the gap in median employment income between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations is larger among males than among females. For example, female Registered Indians living on reserve earned 67% of the employment income earned by non-Indigenous women (a difference of $11,881). By contrast, Registered Indian males living on reserve earned 44% of the employment income earned by non-Indigenous males (a difference of $28,529).

Text alternative for Figure 26: Median employment income, 2015, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Populations, aged 25-64, by gender, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Male	$22,218	$42,838	$44,498	$34,344	$51,282	$50,747
Female	$24,205	$30,034	$30,165	$31,097	$34,002	$36,086

Education – having at least a high school credential

In addition to being a baseline requirement for many careers, completing a formal education at the high school level or above has the added benefit of ensuring that individuals have the literacy, numeracy, and other skills they need to participate fully in Canada's economy and in civil society, and to effectively access the services and benefits to which they are entitled.

Figure 27 demonstrates that significant gaps in high school completion^{Footnote 29} exist between Indigenous populations – particularly First Nations living on reserve and Inuit – and the non-Indigenous population in Canada.

Text alternative for Figure 27: Percentage with at least a high school credential, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Percentage with at least a high school credential	57.0%	75.0%	80.3%	55.9%	82.3%	89.2%

Figure 28 illustrates that levels of high school completion have increased slowly over time for all Indigenous groups, as well as for the non-Indigenous population. The gaps narrowed somewhat for Non-Status Indians and Métis, were unchanged for Registered Indians living off reserve, and widened about six and seven percentage points for Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit, respectively.

Text alternative for Figure 28: Percentage with at least a high school credential, 2001 – 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
2001	51.3%	63.6%	65.9%	51.8%	66.7%	77.7%
2006	50.0%	68.0%	71.5%	48.6%	74.4%	85.2%
2011	53.5%	72.9%	77.7%	51.5%	79.6%	87.9%
2016	57.0%	75.0%	80.3%	55.9%	82.3%	89.2%

Region matters

High school completion varies widely across the provinces and territories. The Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories stand out as having the largest gaps between non-Indigenous and First Nations populations (Figure 29).

Text alternative for Figure 29: Percentage with at least a high school credential, 2016, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	52.8%	83.4%	85.2%	84.6%
Prince Edward Island	65.4%	90.7%	77.0%	88.1%
Nova Scotia	73.8%	85.1%	87.2%	88.0%
New Brunswick	74.3%	82.0%	80.5%	86.4%
Quebec	56.9%	76.9%	79.0%	87.0%
Ontario	60.6%	79.2%	80.5%	89.9%
Manitoba	46.1%	67.7%	75.0%	88.8%
Saskatchewan	54.1%	73.1%	73.8%	90.5%
Alberta	52.4%	72.7%	77.6%	90.1%
British Columbia	65.4%	74.6%	80.5%	91.1%
Yukon	N/A	72.6%	91.0%	92.6%
Northwest Territories	50.0%	57.5%	71.7%	93.7%
Nunavut	N/A	90.5%	81.8%	96.1%

Regional variation in high school attainment is modest among Métis, and the gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population range from a low of one percentage point in Prince Edward Island to a high of almost 14 percentage points in the Northwest Territories (Figure 30).

Text alternative for Figure 30: Percentage with at least a high school credential, 2016, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	82.5%	84.6%
Prince Edward Island	87.1%	88.1%
Nova Scotia	84.7%	88.0%
New Brunswick	78.0%	86.4%
Quebec	81.0%	87.0%
Ontario	86.1%	89.9%
Manitoba	80.2%	88.8%
Saskatchewan	81.3%	90.5%
Alberta	79.8%	90.1%
British Columbia	84.2%	91.1%
Yukon	87.3%	92.6%
Northwest Territories	80.0%	93.7%
Nunavut	85.0%	96.1%

Figure 31 illustrates that, outside Inuit Nunangat, the high school completion gap for Inuit is comparatively small: the rate of high school completion for the non-Indigenous population exceeds that of Inuit by 12 percentage points. Within Inuit Nunangat, however, the gaps range from 30 (in Nunatsiavut) to 56 (in Nunavik) percentage points wide.

Text alternative for Figure 31: Percentage with at least a high school credential, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Nunatsiavut (Labrador)	Nunavik (Northern Quebec)	Inuvialuit Region (NWT and Yukon)	Nunavut	Outside of Inuit Nunangat
Inuit	63.2%	41.0%	53.4%	47.0%	76.7%
Non-Indigenous	93.3%	96.7%	94.5%	95.8%	89.2%

Changes in a population's education levels tend to start with youth. As the availability of and need for formal education expands, young people strive to obtain the credentials they need to achieve their career goals. Although older adults can and do obtain additional educational credentials, most people complete their formal education when they are relatively younger. According to the 2016 Census, for example, while 64% of Indigenous people aged 15-24 who did not already have a high school diploma were enrolled in school, only 2% of those over 45 were enrolled. Looking at the educational attainment of younger cohorts, therefore, can provide some insight into how the overall education gap can be expected to change in the future. Simply put, if the gaps are smaller among younger cohorts, the overall gaps are in the process of narrowing.

As Figure 32 demonstrates, the gaps among the younger cohort are actually slightly larger than the gaps among the older cohort, suggesting that the high school completion gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations are not on track to narrow in the short term.

Text alternative for Figure 32: High school completion gap (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 18-24 and 25-64, 2016, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis
Aged 18-24	45	19	14	45	9
Aged 25-64	32	14	9	33	7

A focus on gender

Unlike other socioeconomic indicators like income and employment, women tend to have higher levels of educational attainment than men. Figure 33 demonstrates that high school completion gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations tend to be larger among males than among females. For example, among Registered Indians living on reserve, the high school completion gap relative to the non-Indigenous population is 34.9 percentage points wide for males, but 29.5 percentage points wide for females.

Text alternative for Figure 33: Percentage with at least a high school credential, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by gender, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Male	52.9%	72.4%	76.9%	54.8%	79.1%	87.7%
Female	61.0%	77.2%	83.3%	56.8%	85.3%	90.6%

Education – completion of a university degree

Although not everyone wants or needs a university degree to fulfil their career goals, those with a university degree still have the highest incomes in Canada, and a degree can generally expand one's employment options as well as providing advanced skills that can be assets in various domains of life.

Figure 34 below illustrates the significant gaps in university attainment that exist for all Indigenous groups, most notably First Nations living on reserve and Inuit, who are less than one-fifth as likely as the non-Indigenous population to have a university degree.

Text alternative for Figure 34: Percentage with a university degree, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Percentage with a university degree	5.4%	11.3%	11.9%	5.3%	13.6%	29.3%

Figure 35 demonstrates that the university gap in the working age population (aged 25-64) has been widening for all Indigenous groups relative to the non-Indigenous population. Although First Nations, Inuit, and Métis all saw increases in university attainment between 2001 and 2016, none increased quickly enough to keep pace with the non-Indigenous population. Moreover, as Figure 36 illustrates, the gaps are wider among younger people (aged 25-34), suggesting that disparities in university completion are not poised to improve in the short term.

Text alternative for Figure 35: Percentage with a university degree, 2001 – 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
2001	3.4%	6.8%	7.0%	2.5%	7.2%	20.1%
2006	4.4%	9.0%	7.9%	3.7%	9.2%	23.4%
2011	4.7%	11.0%	10.7%	5.1%	12.1%	26.5%
2016	5.4%	11.3%	11.9%	5.3%	13.6%	29.3%

Text alternative for Figure 36: University completion gap (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-34 and 25-64, 2016, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis
Aged 25-34	34	25	22	32	19
Aged 25-64	24	18	17	24	16

Region matters

Figure 37 illustrates the marked variations in university completion gaps for First Nations across regions. The gaps tend to be less pronounced in the Atlantic provinces, where university completion among the non-Indigenous population is lower. Figure 38 shows a similar pattern among Métis.

Text alternative for Figure 37: Percentage with a university degree, 2016, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	3.8%	14.1%	16.8%	18.8%
Prince Edward Island	5.8%	22.7%	9.8%	23.9%
Nova Scotia	15.1%	19.2%	14.9%	25.9%
New Brunswick	8.2%	15.1%	10.4%	20.5%
Quebec	5.7%	13.0%	11.4%	25.9%
Ontario	5.2%	12.7%	11.7%	32.4%
Manitoba	5.2%	9.6%	9.7%	28.0%
Saskatchewan	5.1%	11.8%	10.5%	24.5%
Alberta	4.1%	9.5%	11.2%	29.2%
British Columbia	5.0%	10.0%	11.3%	31.0%
Yukon	N/A	9.3%	15.7%	35.3%
Northwest Territories	0.0%	5.2%	8.3%	38.2%
Nunavut	N/A	23.8%	36.4%	50.6%

Text alternative for Figure 38: Percentage with a university degree, 2016, Métis and Non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	12.1%	18.8%
Prince Edward Island	19.4%	23.9%
Nova Scotia	17.9%	25.9%
New Brunswick	10.3%	20.5%
Quebec	13.7%	25.9%
Ontario	16.0%	32.4%
Manitoba	12.8%	28.0%
Saskatchewan	12.9%	24.5%
Alberta	12.0%	29.2%
British Columbia	13.0%	31.0%
Yukon	16.7%	35.3%
Northwest Territories	17.1%	38.2%
Nunavut	35.0%	50.6%

Figure 39 demonstrates the very large gaps in university completion that exist between Inuit and the non-Indigenous population, even outside of Inuit Nunangat. Within Inuit Nunangat, almost half of the non-Indigenous population in each region has a university degree, compared to only a very small percentage of Inuit.

Text alternative for Figure 39: Percentage with a university degree, 2016, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by region

	Nunatsiavut (Labrador)	Nunavik (Northern Quebec)	Inuvialuit Region (NWT and Yukon)	Nunavut	Outside of Inuit Nunangat
Inuit	4.0%	1.1%	3.0%	2.6%	12.0%
Non-Indigenous	46.7%	48.9%	47.9%	50.5%	29.3%

A focus on gender

As Figure 40 demonstrates, the university completion gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations are similar for males and females.

Text alternative for Figure 40: Percentage with a university degree, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, by gender, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Male	2.9%	8.0%	9.0%	3.4%	10.7%	26.9%
Female	7.8%	14.1%	14.4%	7.0%	16.3%	31.7%

Housing – crowding

The World Health Organization identified overcrowding as a major factor in the transmission of diseases^{Footnote 30},^{Footnote 31}, and it has been linked to other adverse outcomes such as behavioural issues among children.^{Footnote 32} While the likelihood that one will live in a crowded dwelling is largely a function of one's income or wealth, it is also impacted by the availability of housing and other aspects of local housing markets, and therefore should be measured separately.

Figure 41 below illustrates that crowded^{Footnote 33} dwellings are rare in the non-Indigenous population, even though, as seen above, 13.8% of that population is living in a low income situation. Crowded dwellings are similarly rare among Registered Indians living off reserve, Non-Status Indians, and Métis. By contrast, the crowding gaps measured for Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit are substantial, and, as Figure 42 illustrates, have changed little since 2001.

Text alternative for Figure 41: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded	12.7%	2.7%	1.1%	16.0%	0.8%	1.8%

Text alternative for Figure 42: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2001 – 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
2001	13.8%	3.8%	1.3%	15.3%	1.5%	1.3%
2006	12.6%	3.4%	1.3%	16.3%	1.2%	1.4%
2011	13.1%	3.4%	1.4%	15.6%	1.3%	1.9%
2016	12.7%	2.7%	1.1%	16.0%	0.8%	1.8%

Region matters

As Figure 43 illustrates, crowding among First Nations is overwhelmingly an issue for those living on reserve, particularly in the Prairie provinces, although Registered Indians living off reserve experience crowding gaps relative to the non-Indigenous populations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories.

Text alternative for Figure 43: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2016, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	14.5%	0.5%	0.3%	0.3%
Prince Edward Island	0.0%	0.0%	2.8%	0.5%
Nova Scotia	4.5%	0.2%	0.9%	0.5%
New Brunswick	2.3%	1.4%	1.4%	0.5%
Quebec	10.6%	0.8%	0.6%	1.1%
Ontario	8.3%	1.4%	1.0%	2.4%
Manitoba	23.1%	5.1%	1.8%	2.5%
Saskatchewan	18.9%	5.7%	3.0%	1.5%
Alberta	17.6%	3.3%	1.2%	2.0%
British Columbia	4.8%	2.8%	1.5%	2.2%
Yukon	N/A	1.7%	0.0%	1.6%
Northwest Territories	11.8%	9.9%	0.0%	2.5%
Nunavut	N/A	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%

Figure 44 illustrates that, while the percentage of dwellings classified as crowded is slightly higher among Métis than among the non-Indigenous population in some regions (e.g., Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon), the opposite is true in other regions (e.g., Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories). Overall, the crowding gaps between Métis and the non-Indigenous population are very small across the country.

Text alternative for Figure 44: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2016, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	0.8%	0.3%
Prince Edward Island	0.0%	0.5%
Nova Scotia	0.5%	0.5%
New Brunswick	0.5%	0.5%
Quebec	0.4%	1.1%
Ontario	0.6%	2.4%
Manitoba	0.8%	2.5%
Saskatchewan	1.4%	1.5%
Alberta	1.2%	2.0%
British Columbia	1.0%	2.2%
Yukon	2.0%	1.6%
Northwest Territories	1.3%	2.5%
Nunavut	0.0%	1.6%

As shown in Figure 45, outside Inuit Nunangat, crowded dwellings are similarly rare for Inuit and the non-Indigenous population. Inside Inuit Nunangat, while crowded dwellings are still rare among the non-Indigenous population, more than a quarter of Inuit households are crowded in Nunavut (28.6%) and Nunavik (27.2%), with significant crowding among Inuit dwellings in Nunatsiavut (8.2%) and Inuvialuit (6.6%) as well.

Text alternative for Figure 45: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2016, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Nunatsiavut (Labrador)	Nunavik (Northern Quebec)	Inuvialuit Region (NWT and Yukon)	Nunavut	Outside of Inuit Nunangat
Inuit	8.2%	27.2%	6.6%	28.6%	1.3%
Non-Indigenous	0.0%	1.7%	2.0%	1.9%	1.8%

Housing – dwellings in need of major repair

Similar to living in a crowded home, living in a home that is in need of major repair can have adverse impacts on well-being, both directly (e.g., if mold is present) or indirectly (e.g., by creating financial or mental stress, being disruptive, or depriving people of the household facilities on which they depend^{Footnote 34}).

Figure 46 illustrates that there is a significant housing repair gap between Indigenous and the non-Indigenous population, with the largest gaps being evident among Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit.

Text alternative for Figure 46: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair,2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair	40.0%	12.2%	12.3%	21.8%	10.3%	6.0%

As Figure 47 illustrates, the percentage of dwellings in need of major repair decreased for the non-Indigenous population, Registered Indians living off reserve, Non-Status Indians, and Métis. Moreover, the gaps between these Indigenous groups and the non-Indigenous population narrowed slightly. By contrast, the percentage of dwellings in need of major repair rose for Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit, and their gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population widened slightly.

Text alternative for Figure 47: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair,2001 – 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
2001	36.9%	16.2%	17.3%	20.1%	14.9%	7.8%
2006	42.2%	15.4%	14.5%	22.4%	12.5%	7.0%
2011	39.7%	14.4%	13.2%	25.1%	12.1%	6.9%
2016	40.0%	12.2%	12.3%	21.8%	10.3%	6.0%

Region matters

There are important regional variations in the housing repair gaps between the non-Indigenous population and Registered Indians living off reserve and Non-Status Indians, particularly in the Northwest Territories. When considering First Nations populations, however, it is the gap for Registered Indians living on reserve that has the most striking regional variations, going from a low of 21.0 percentage points wide in Nova Scotia to a high of 42.0 percentage points wide in Manitoba (Figure 48).

Text alternative for Figure 48: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2016, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	28.3%	9.0%	9.2%	6.1%
Prince Edward Island	30.8%	14.6%	13.9%	7.5%
Nova Scotia	29.4%	11.6%	16.0%	8.4%
New Brunswick	32.7%	11.7%	15.6%	7.9%
Quebec	31.9%	10.3%	11.2%	6.2%
Ontario	37.4%	11.2%	13.6%	5.8%
Manitoba	48.8%	15.6%	15.3%	6.9%
Saskatchewan	48.0%	12.3%	11.8%	6.9%
Alberta	46.7%	10.3%	8.6%	5.1%
British Columbia	33.2%	12.5%	11.3%	5.8%
Yukon	N/A	23.0%	10.8%	9.4%
Northwest Territories	47.1%	28.8%	23.7%	9.9%
Nunavut	N/A	14.3%	0.0%	11.6%

As Figure 49 illustrates, the housing repair gap between Métis and the non-Indigenous population was relatively consistent across regions, with Métis dwellings in all regions being at least somewhat more likely to be in need of major repair.

Text alternative for Figure 49: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2016, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	9.5%	6.1%
Prince Edward Island	8.8%	7.5%
Nova Scotia	11.3%	8.4%
New Brunswick	12.2%	7.9%
Quebec	11.0%	6.2%
Ontario	10.9%	5.8%
Manitoba	10.8%	6.9%
Saskatchewan	10.0%	6.9%
Alberta	9.2%	5.1%
British Columbia	9.1%	5.8%
Yukon	17.2%	9.4%
Northwest Territories	16.2%	9.9%
Nunavut	20.0%	11.6%

Figure 50 shows that, outside Inuit Nunangat, the percentage of Inuit dwellings that are in need of major repair exceeds that of non-Indigenous dwellings by 4.8 percentage points. While not apparently large, this gap does mean that Inuit dwellings are nearly twice as likely to be in need of major repairs as non-Indigenous dwellings. Inside Inuit Nunangat, the repair gap for Inuit dwellings is relatively consistent across regions, ranging from 13.4 (in Nunavik) percentage points to 19.1 (in Nunavut).

Text alternative for Figure 50: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2016, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Nunatsiavut (Labrador)	Nunavik (Northern Quebec)	Inuvialuit Region (NWT and Yukon)	Nunavut	Outside of Inuit Nunangat
Inuit	30.6%	22.4%	29.5%	30.7%	10.9%
Non-Indigenous	15.4%	9.1%	12.9%	11.6%	6.0%

Family – children in foster care

Indigenous children are far more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in foster care. Even though Indigenous peoples make up only 4.9% of the population of Canada, Indigenous children make up almost half of the children in foster care (Figure 51)^{Footnote 35}.

Text alternative for Figure 51: Percentage of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children comprising the total population of children aged 0-17 in foster care, 2016, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Other Indigenous	Non-Indigenous
Percentage of children comprising the total population of children aged 0-17 in foster care	7.5%	25.8%	7.4%	1.6%	5.5%	0.4%	51.7%

As Figure 52 illustrates, even though relatively few Indigenous and non-Indigenous children are in foster care, the likelihood of being in foster care is much higher for Indigenous children. Registered Indian children, in particular, are 15 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in foster care.

Note that Figure 52 includes a statistic for all Registered Indian children, in addition to the breakdown between those living on and off reserve. In subsequent charts related to foster care, the breakdown is not included as it may be misleading, since Registered Indian children living in foster care off reserve may come from families living on reserve.

Text alternative for Figure 52: Percentage of children aged 0-17 in foster care, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

	Registered Indian (total)	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Percentage of children comprising the total population of children aged 0-17 in foster care	4.5%	2.2%	6.4%	3.1%	2.4%	1.3%	0.3%

Data on foster care gaps is only available for two time periods, as this information was only first captured in the 2011 National Household Survey, which was that year's equivalent to the long-form census. As Figure 53 shows, the percentage of children in foster care fell between 2011 and 2016 for all Indigenous groups except for Non-Status Indians, who saw a slight increase in the percentage of children in foster care. Since the proportion of non-Indigenous children in foster care (0.3%) did not change between 2011 and 2016, all Indigenous groups except for Non-Status Indians experienced a small decrease in the foster care gap.

Text alternative for Figure 53: Percentage of children aged 0-17 in foster care, 2011 – 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

	Registered Indians (total)	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
2011	5.0%	2.8%	2.7%	1.4%	0.3%
2016	4.5%	3.1%	2.4%	1.3%	0.3%

Region matters

Figure 54 illustrates that, although there are some regions in which the foster care gap for Non-Status Indians is small or negligible, the gap for Registered Indians is always pronounced. In Manitoba the gaps for both Registered Indians (6.8 percentage points) and Non-Status Indians (12.4 percentage points) are particularly large.

Text alternative for Figure 54: Percentage of children aged 0-17 in foster care, 2016, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Registered Indians	Non-Status Indian	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	2.5%	0.7%	0.5%
Prince Edward Island	0.0%	0.0%	0.4%
Nova Scotia	2.9%	0.3%	0.4%
New Brunswick	2.1%	0.9%	0.4%
Quebec	3.0%	1.6%	0.4%
Ontario	3.0%	1.6%	0.2%
Manitoba	7.2%	12.8%	0.4%
Saskatchewan	2.9%	5.0%	0.2%
Alberta	5.4%	4.2%	0.2%
British Columbia	5.3%	3.6%	0.3%
Yukon	3.8%	5.4%	0.0%
Northwest Territories	2.5%	0.0%	0.2%
Nunavut	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

Figure 55 shows a comparison of the percentage of Métis and non-Indigenous children in foster care. Although the percentages seem very high in Nunavut and the Yukon, they are based on extremely small numbers of Métis children in those regions (25 and 245 children, respectively). It is likely more valuable to focus on Manitoba and British Columbia, which have large Métis populations and comparatively high percentages of Métis children in foster care.

Text alternative for Figure 55: Percentage of children aged 0-17 in foster care, 2016, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Newfoundland and Labrador	0.0%	0.5%
Prince Edward Island	0.0%	0.4%
Nova Scotia	0.2%	0.4%
New Brunswick	0.0%	0.4%
Quebec	0.6%	0.4%
Ontario	0.5%	0.2%
Manitoba	2.7%	0.4%
Saskatchewan	1.2%	0.2%
Alberta	1.2%	0.2%
British Columbia	2.1%	0.3%
Yukon	6.1%	0.0%
Northwest Territories	0.0%	0.2%
Nunavut	40.0%	0.0%

Although small numbers make it difficult to interpret differences in the percentage of Inuit who are in foster care across Inuit regions, it is notable that the percentage of Inuit children in care inside Inuit Nunangat (1.4%) is lower than the percentage outside Inuit Nunangat (5.7%). Again, this pattern might be misleading as some Inuit children in foster care outside Inuit Nunangat might originate from families inside Inuit Nunangat.

Culture – Indigenous language knowledge

Indigenous languages have a very important role in Indigenous cultures, and reflect the rich and distinct worldviews of the different Indigenous nations across the country.

Knowledge of Indigenous languages is not compared to non-Indigenous languages in this report. Instead, the report examines trends in Indigenous language use over time and whether those trends reflect Indigenous peoples' aspirations with respect to the preservation and practice of their ancestral languages.

According to the 2012 Aboriginal Peoples Survey^{Footnote 36}, half of Indigenous peoples living off reserve reported that it was somewhat or very important to them to speak an Indigenous language (66.9% of Registered Indians, 45.3% of Non-Status Indians, 80.9% of Inuit, and 36.8% of Métis).^{Footnote 37} Similarly, according to the First Nations Regional Early Childhood, Education, and Employment survey, the vast majority of First Nations adults living on reserve or in a northern First Nation community reported that it was somewhat or very important to them to understand (91.4%) and speak (90.8%) a First Nations language.^{Footnote 38}

As Figure 56 demonstrates, knowledge of an Indigenous language, defined in terms of one's self-reported ability to conduct a conversation in the language, is common only among Inuit (64.8%) and Registered Indians living on reserve (44.8%).

Text alternative for Figure 56: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2016, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis
Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language	44.8%	11.7%	1.9%	64.8%	1.6%

Figure 57 illustrates that knowledge of an Indigenous language has declined slowly over time, when one considers the proportion of Indigenous people who can conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language.

Text alternative for Figure 57: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2001 – 2016, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis
2001	49.5%	17.8%	5.3%	72.0%	5.0%
2006	50.8%	16.3%	3.2%	70.9%	3.3%
2011	44.6%	12.3%	2.2%	64.0%	2.4%
2016	44.8%	11.7%	1.9%	64.8%	1.6%

Region matters

Figure 58 demonstrates that, among First Nations, the ability to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language varies considerably across regions, with rates among Registered Indians living on reserve ranging from as low as 10.7% in Prince Edward Island to as high as 80.0% in Quebec; and rates among Registered Indians living off reserve ranging from as low as 2.8% in Newfoundland and Labrador to as high as 40.2% in the Northwest Territories. Even Non-Status Indians, whose national rate of Indigenous language knowledge is less than two percent, have a rate approaching 10% in Saskatchewan. Their rate is even higher in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, though it is worth emphasizing that the populations of Non-Status Indians in these regions is quite small.

Text alternative for Figure 58: Percentage of First Nations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2016, by region

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian
Newfoundland and Labrador	64.6%	2.8%	0.3%
Prince Edward Island	10.7%	3.0%	0.0%
Nova Scotia	54.2%	4.8%	0.6%
New Brunswick	31.8%	7.2%	1.2%
Quebec	80.0%	12.2%	2.0%
Ontario	41.1%	7.9%	1.1%
Manitoba	46.2%	15.5%	4.6%
Saskatchewan	42.5%	18.4%	9.8%
Alberta	45.1%	13.6%	3.3%
British Columbia	20.1%	6.4%	1.1%
Yukon	N/A	17.4%	5.7%
Northwest Territories	26.3%	40.2%	16.1%
Nunavut	N/A	35.3%	18.8%

The ability to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language varies markedly for Métis, with the highest rates seen in the large Métis populations in Saskatchewan and Alberta (Figure 59). Higher rates are also evident in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but again, it is important to note that Métis populations in these regions are small – particularly in Nunavut where only approximately 140 Métis reside.

Text alternative for Figure 59: Percentage of Métis with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2016, by region

	Métis
Newfoundland and Labrador	0.4%
Prince Edward Island	0.0%
Nova Scotia	0.1%
New Brunswick	0.2%
Quebec	0.3%
Ontario	0.4%
Manitoba	0.9%
Saskatchewan	6.7%
Alberta	2.5%
British Columbia	0.5%
Yukon	1.7%
Northwest Territories	5.7%
Nunavut	24.1%

As Figure 60 illustrates, knowledge of an Indigenous language varies widely across the four Inuit regions. The vast majority of Inuit in Nunavik (99.3%) and Nunavut (89.1%) can conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, compared to less than a quarter in each of Nunatsiavut (21.4%) and Inuvialuit Region (23.3%). Among Inuit living outside Inuit Nunangat, knowledge of an Indigenous language is comparatively rare at 11.6%.

Text alternative for Figure 60: Percentage of Inuit with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2016, by region

	Nunatsiavut (Labrador)	Nunavik (Northern Quebec)	Inuvialuit Region (NWT and Yukon)	Nunavut	Outside of Inuit Nunangat
Percentage of Inuit with knowledge of an Indigenous language	21.4%	99.3%	23.3%	89.1%	11.6%

A focus on gender

As Figure 61 demonstrates, the likelihood of knowing an Indigenous language is similar for males and females across Indigenous groups.

Text alternative for Figure 61: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2016, by gender, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language	47.7%	30.3%	25.2%	22.3%	17.3%	13.8%

The percentage of Indigenous peoples with knowledge of an Indigenous language is only one way of assessing the long-term viability of Indigenous language use. The sheer number of language users is also important.^{Footnote 39} For example, a language whose 100,000 speakers represent only 10% of a population may be equally or more viable as a language whose 100 speakers comprise 100% of its population. With this is mind, it is important to note that, owing to the growth of Indigenous populations, the raw number of individuals who can conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language actually increased between 2001 and 2016 for some Indigenous groups: by 18,820 for Registered Indians living on reserve; by 4,635 for Registered Indians living off reserve; and, by 9,910 for Inuit (Figure 62). The raw number of Individuals able to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language decreased by 4,555 among Métis and by 1,195 among Non-Status Indians, highlighting the particular vulnerability of Indigenous language knowledge in these populations.

Text alternative for Figure 62: Change in number of people with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2001 – 2016, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis
Change in number of people with knowledge of an Indigenous language	18,820	4,635	-1,195	9,910	-4,555

Looking at younger individuals is another way of examining the health and longevity of a language, since the survival of a language is heavily dependent on its transmission from parent or guardian to child in the home.^{Footnote 40} As Figure 63 illustrates, among Registered Indians on reserve those aged 0-19 (33.3%) are markedly less likely than their older counterparts (52.7%) to be able to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language. A similar pattern is apparent among Registered Indians off reserve, with 7.8% of those aged 0-19 being able to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, as compared to 13.7% of older individuals. Among Métis aged 0-19, the ability to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language has dropped below one percent. By contrast, younger people are actually slightly more likely than older Inuit to be able to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, suggesting strong long-term resilience of Indigenous language knowledge among Inuit. Although the percentage of Non-Status Indians who can conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language is slightly higher among younger (2.0%) than older (1.8%) individuals, the overall percentage is so small that the precariousness of knowledge of an Indigenous language in this population must still be highlighted.

Text alternative for Figure 63: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2016, aged 0-19 and aged 20+, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis
Aged 0-19	33.3%	7.8%	2.0%	65.7%	0.9%
Aged 20+	52.7%	13.7%	1.8%	64.2%	1.9%

Health – life expectancy

Life expectancy is one of the key, internationally-recognized indicators of population health. Reliable life expectancy estimates for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis populations are currently readily available for only two time periods: 2006 and 2011, and only at the national level. These estimates were developed using population-based linked datasets called the Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohorts (CanCHECs), and were published by Statistics Canada in a 2019 article entitled Life expectancy of First Nations, Métis and Inuit household populations in Canada.^{Footnote 41}

Figure 64 below illustrates the average life expectancies at age one^{Footnote 42} for First Nations, Inuit, Métis and Non-Indigenous populations in 2011.

The life expectancy gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population in 2011 were 8.9 years and 9.6 years for First Nations males and females, respectively; 11.4 and 11.2 years for Inuit males and females, respectively; and 4.5 and 5 years for Métis males and females, respectively.

Text alternative for Figure 64: Life expectancy at age one, 2011, Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Populations, by gender, Canada

	First Nations	Métis	Inuit	Non-Indigenous
Male	72.5	76.9	70	81.4
Female	77.7	82.3	76.1	87.3

Figure 65 illustrates that life expectancy for males and females in Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations increased slightly between 2006 and 2011. Among males, Inuit life expectancy increased the most, and their gap relative to the non-Indigenous population narrowed slightly. The gap for First Nations and Métis, however, widened slightly. Among females, the life expectancy of the non-Indigenous population increased the most, meaning the life expectancy gaps for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis females increased slightly.

Text alternative for Figure 65: Life expectancy at age one, 2006 – 2011, by gender (male), Canada

Male	First Nations	Métis	Inuit	Non-Indigenous
2006	71.6	76	68	80.1
2011	72.6	76.9	70	81.4

Text alternative for Figure 65: Life expectancy at age one, 2006 – 2011, by gender (female), Canada

Female	First Nations	Métis	Inuit	Non-Indigenous
2006	77.1	81.5	75.2	85.8
2011	77.7	82.3	76.1	87.3

Health – infant mortality

Another key international indicator of population health is infant mortality, which is monitored by organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Health Organization.

The indicator is defined in terms of the number of infants who die before age one, expressed as a rate per thousand live births. Reliable life expectancy estimates that are comparable for First Nations, Inuit, Métis, and non-Indigenous populations are currently readily available for only a single point in time, based on a cohort of singleton births (May 16, 2004 through May 15, 2006) created by linking the Canadian Live Birth, Infant Death, and Stillbirth Database of the 2006 Census. Results were published by Statistics Canada in a 2017 article entitled Birth outcomes among First Nations, Inuit and Métis populations.^{Footnote 43}

Figure 66 illustrates that infant mortality is higher for each of the three Indigenous groups than for the non-Indigenous population. The error bars highlight that there is some imprecision in the estimates for the Indigenous groups. Nevertheless, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis infant mortality rates are measured to be 2.1, 2.8, and 2.4 times the rate of the non-Indigenous population, respectively.

Text alternative for Figure 66: Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births, May 2004-May 2006 cohort, Canada

	First Nations			Inuit			Métis			Non-Indigenous
	Rate	95% confidence interval (from/to)		Rate	95% confidence interval (from/to)		Rate	95% confidence interval (from/to)		Rate	95% confidence interval (from/to)
Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births	9.2	7.5	11.3	12.3	9.9	15.2	10.5	7.1	15.5	4.4	4.2	4.7

Justice – victimization

Being safe in one's community is a key factor in well-being, and can be measured in various ways. This report looks specifically at experiences of violent victimization, which are measured in the 2018 Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces in terms of whether one has experienced physical or sexual assault since the age of 15.

Figure 67 illustrates that Indigenous peoples are significantly more likely than the non-Indigenous population to have experienced violent victimization, with the gap being 17.1 percentage points wide among women and 20.2 percentage points wide among men. Not enough Inuit were surveyed to allow analyses specific to Inuit, and no data are currently available that distinguish Registered Indians from Non-Status Indians, or those living on versus off reserve. Published statistics on First Nations and Métis suggest that their rates of violent victimization are similarly elevated. Error bars are included in the chart to highlight that the Indigenous sample in the source survey was small, and the apparent differences between First Nations and Métis were not precisely measured and could be due to chance.

Text alternative for Figure 67: Percentage who experienced violent victimization since the age of 15 years, 2018, aged 15+, Canada

	Indigenous (total)			Non-Indigenous			First Nations			Métis
Male	Percentage	95% confidence interval (from/to)		Percentage	95% confidence interval (from/to)		Percentage	95% confidence interval (from/to)		Percentage	95% confidence interval (from/to)
Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births	54.9%	49.1%	60.5%	34.7%	33.6%	35.8%	49.8%	40.6%	59.0%	58.9%	51.4%	66.1%

	Indigenous (total)			Non-Indigenous			First Nations			Métis
Female	Percentage	95% confidence interval (from/to)		Percentage	95% confidence interval (from/to)		Percentage	95% confidence interval (from/to)		Percentage	95% confidence interval (from/to)
Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births	55.3%	50.2%	60.2%	38.2%	37.1%	39.2%	58.0%	50.5%	65.1%	55.0%	48.2%	61.5%

Justice – incarceration

Disproportionate levels of incarceration can be a strong signal that a holistic examination is in order of both crime and institutional responses to it.

Figures 68 and 69 below show data from the Adult Correctional Services Survey.^{Footnote 45} Figure 68 provides a rough estimate of the differences in incarceration rates between Indigenous and the non-Indigenous population in 2016/17. Specifically, it presents the number of custody admissions^{Footnote 46} associated with Indigenous and the non-Indigenous population in 2016/17 as a percentage of their respective 2016 census populations.^{Footnote 47} Since a single person can have more than one custody admission in a year, this percentage does not represent a true rate. Nevertheless, it does suggest that custody admissions are far more common among Indigenous peoples than the non-Indigenous population.

Text alternative for Figure 68: Custody admissions associated with Indigenous and the non-Indigenous population in 2016/17 as a percentage of their respective 2016 Census populations, Canada

	Indigenous	Non-Indigenous
Custody admissions associated with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in 2016/17 as a percentage of their respective 2016 Census populations	4.5%	0.5%

Figure 69 demonstrates the degree to which Indigenous people were overrepresented among custody admissions to correctional services in the years 2013/14 through 2017/18. According to the 2016 Census, Indigenous people made up 4.9% of the population of Canada that year. In 2016/17, however, the Adult Correctional Services Survey determined that Indigenous peoples were involved in 29.9% of custody admissions.

Text alternative for Figure 69: Percentage of custody admissions of individuals with Indigenous and Non-Indigenous identity, 2013/2014 – 2017/2018, Canada

	Indigenous	Non-Indigenous
2013/2014	25.8%	74.2%
2014/2015	26.2%	73.8%
2015/2016	26.7%	73.3%
2016/2017	29.9%	70.1%
2017/2018	30.1%	69.9%

A focus on urban settings

According to the 2016 Census, about 45% of Registered Indians, 76% of Non-Status Indians, 50% of Inuit, and 70% of Métis live in urban areas. In some cases, census data for the indicators considered in this report were readily available disaggregated for urban populations.^{Footnote 48}

Analyses of these data revealed that gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations living in urban settings are generally similar to those that exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations overall. Employment rates provide a useful illustration. Figure 70 shows the employment rate gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations overall, and Figure 71 shows the gaps for urban sub-populations. Urban and overall rates are within a percentage point of each other for Registered Indians living off reserve, Non-Status Indians, and the non-Indigenous population. The difference is somewhat more marked among Inuit, whose employment rate is about two and a half percentage points higher in an urban environment. The tendency to see higher outcomes for Inuit in urban areas (and smaller gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population), echoes earlier regional analyses, which showed the large differences in socioeconomic outcomes between Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat, and those residing in the South.

Text alternative for Figure 70: Employment rate, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, Canada

	Registered Indian on reserve	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Employment rate	46.9%	60.2%	66.1%	57.4%	70.4%	76.0%

Text alternative for Figure 71: Employment rate, 2016, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25-64, urban areas, Canada

	Registered Indian off reserve	Non-Status Indian	Inuit	Métis	Non-Indigenous
Employment rate	60.0%	67.1%	60.0%	71.4%	76.4%

Conclusion – addressing data gaps

Indigenous Services Canada continues to take steps to improve the quality and availability of data on Indigenous populations to ensure that socioeconomic gaps between Indigenous and the non-Indigenous populations can be measured reliably and comprehensively.

First, the department continues to provide funding and expertise to support the Census of Canada, which continues to be the cornerstone of data on Indigenous populations in Canada. It not only provides high quality data that are comparable across populations and over time, and which are generally available even down to the community level, but it functions as a technical foundation for data integration, sampling, and data processing.

Second, the department continues to invest in specialized surveys on Indigenous populations. These include:

• the Surveys on Indigenous Peoples, which received permanent funding ($49.4 million over five years and $9.9 million per year ongoing) through Budget 2019 and which covers First Nations living on and off reserve, as well as Inuit and Métis;
• the First Nations Regional Health Survey, which received permanent funding in Budget 2019 ($24.7 million over four years and $4.9 million ongoing); and
• the new Inuit Health Survey, which received permanent funding in Budget 2018 ($82 million over 10 years and $6 million per year ongoing).

Importantly, the bulk of these funds were allocated to Indigenous organizations. Given the increasing recognition that strong, Indigenous-led data capacity is key to Indigenous peoples' self-determination and Indigenous Services Canada's ultimate goal of service transfer, the department prioritized survey initiatives that supported Indigenous peoples themselves to identify and address the data gaps impacting their populations.

Third, the department has invested in a number of surveys of the general Canadian population. These investments ($770,000 in the 2019 General Social Survey on Victimization; $660,000 in the upcoming National Legal Problems Survey; and $1,300,000 for the upcoming Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies survey of literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving skills) will allow Statistics Canada to collect data from enough Indigenous peoples that Indigenous-specific data will be possible and gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population can be identified.

Fourth, Indigenous Services Canada is turning its attention increasingly towards administrative data, or more specifically, the integration of select administrative data sources with other data sources (such as Census and survey data), to produce powerful new data sets at relatively low cost and without increasing respondent burden. Indigenous Services Canada has developed a partnership with Statistics Canada, through which administrative data from departmental programs are shared with Statistics Canada^{Footnote 49}, who explores their potential to be integrated with other data sets and used for new statistical purposes. The first major new dataset to be developed is called the Longitudinal Indian Register Database, which Statistics Canada produced by linking the Indian Register that Indigenous Services Canada manages with tax data from the Canada Revenue Agency. Indigenous Services Canada has also shared its administrative data on infrastructure with Statistics Canada, who is using it to validate and supplement on reserve data from Canada's Core Public Infrastructure Survey; as well as the department's data holdings related to First Nation Chiefs and councilors, which Statistics Canada will use to report on gender representation among First Nation Chiefs and councillors.^{Footnote 50}

Notably, Indigenous Services Canada's data sharing and integration relationship with Statistics Canada is just one element of the broader efforts being undertaken to improve and integrate the department's administrative data holdings. Although Indigenous Services Canada must rely on Statistics Canada to integrate data about individual people, the department is taking steps to harmonize and integrate community-level data holdings, as a means of reducing respondent burden, improving data quality, facilitating fast and accurate reporting, and creating a multidimensional data set that will help program and policy makers understand the interrelationships between program and policy areas, so that services to Indigenous communities can be improved.

Fifth, as part of the New Fiscal Relationship the department is working with the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Information Governance Centre to co-develop and engage with First Nations on a National Outcomes-Based Framework to better measure and report on the closure of socio-economic gaps between First Nations and non-Indigenous Canadians. This work also responds to numerous reports and studies, over the past 40 years which have consistently underlined the negative impacts of a narrow focus on compliance and its associated recipient reporting burden, calling for a shift to a focus on outcomes. Most recently in the spring of 2018, the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) released Report 5 "Socio-economic Gaps on First Nations Reserves – Indigenous Services Canada". The report found that the department did not have a comprehensive picture of well-being of on reserve First Nations people compared with other Canadians as measured by the Community Well-being Index, and indicated that while the Index includes important measures of well-being (i.e., education, employment, housing, income), it does not include critical variables such as health, environment, language and culture. The department agreed with the OAG recommendation, highlighting in its response that it would build on the Community Well-being Index by co-developing, with First Nations and other partners, a broad dashboard of well-being outcomes that will reflect mutually agreed-upon metrics in measuring and reporting on closing socio-economic gaps. This means that the right data are necessary to track progress on priorities as identified by First Nations, and to demonstrate outcomes for Canadians on the closure of the socio-economic gaps between First Nations and non-Indigenous Canadians.

Finally, although improving Indigenous Services Canada's service delivery to Indigenous peoples is an important immediate goal, the department's data development work is also oriented to the longer-term goal of service transfer. The investments in survey and administrative data described above will help ensure that Indigenous peoples have a wealth of high-quality data to support them as they take on increasing responsibilities for their members. At the same time, the department is exploring ways to support Indigenous peoples to develop their capacity to govern, manage, and use those data. For example, Budget 2018 included $2.5 million for the First Nations Information Governance Centre to support their design of a national First Nations data governance strategy and coordination of efforts to establish regional First Nations data governance centres. In support of the Government's commitment to address the over-representation of Indigenous children and youth in care, Indigenous Services Canada continues to work with Indigenous, provincial and territorial partners to co-develop inter-jurisdictional data collection, sharing and reporting on Indigenous children in care. As Indigenous Services Canada continues to craft its own data strategy^{Footnote 51}, the department will seek opportunities to support Inuit and Métis as well in their development and implementation of evidence-based approaches to this transfer of responsibilities and communities' ongoing provision of services.

Introduction

The provision of essential services to citizens is a core business of government. The term "essential or core services" often refers to services that are critical to the public's health and safety and can include services such as healthcare, social services, infrastructure, and emergency response. By definition, essential services must be available and accessible to all Canadians. Historically, there have been gaps in the availability and accessibility of some services for Indigenous peoples creating significant disadvantages. Ensuring that Indigenous peoples have access to services comparable to other Canadians is a core priority for Indigenous Services Canada and key to reducing socioeconomic gaps. However, this alone is not enough to redress decades of underfunding. Efforts must aim toward achieving substantive equality, which refers to the achievement of true equality in outcomes. It is achieved through equal access and opportunity and, most importantly, the provision of services and benefits in a manner and according to standards that meet unique needs and circumstances, such as cultural, social, economic and historical disadvantage, of the people that access them. Addressing gaps in access to essential services is the first step toward closing socioeconomic gaps between Indigenous and the non-Indigenous population.

There are currently 34 federal departments and agencies with responsibility to meet the Canada's obligations and commitments to Indigenous peoples. The Minister of Indigenous Services Canada leads federal efforts to achieve substantive equality for Indigenous peoples, a cornerstone of the broader approach towards reconciliation. Indigenous Services Canada is responsible for supporting the provision of core services to Indigenous peoples including child and family services, education, health, social development, economic development, housing, infrastructure, access to potable water, and emergency response. It does this through a variety of authorities and arrangements which have evolved over time to address specific conditions and requirements. These services are vital to the overall wellbeing of Indigenous communities, and are a necessary precursor to Indigenous peoples fully participating in Canada's society and economy. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the federal government to ensure that Indigenous peoples in Canada have access to essential services that aim to achieve substantive equality in order to ensure comparable access to services as non-Indigenous Canadians.

Complex delivery environment

The context in which services are provided to Indigenous peoples is a complex one due to a number of factors. The Indigenous population is rapidly increasing as a result of both natural growth and policy changes which in turn heightens overall demand for core services. Between the 2006 and 2016 Censuses, the Indigenous population increased at a rate four times faster than the non-Indigenous population. Compounding this natural population increase is the passage of An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada, which received Royal Assent in 2017. This legislation removed all known sex-based inequities in the Indian Act.^{Footnote 52} The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that the changes will result in between 270,000 and 450,000 additional individuals being eligible to register as status Indians, which will have a proportional impact on Indigenous Services Canada's demand-driven programs.

Another factor that adds to the complexity is the evolving service context; specifically the interactions between federal and provincial systems, as well as the introduction of Indigenous-led organizations. To date, the federal government has played a lead role in the delivery of services to First Nations living on reserve that would otherwise be delivered by provinces or territories. In contrast, provinces and territories deliver services in many of the same areas for First Nations living off reserve, Inuit, and Métis. Consequently, the provision of targeted and culturally appropriate services for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis are somewhat limited and vary considerably across jurisdictions. In some areas of provincial jurisdiction, Indigenous Services Canada has adopted alternative service delivery models involving bilateral or tripartite agreements, that specify their own distinct coordination of funding and service delivery.

Indigenous governance structures also add complexity to this evolving dynamic as they vary across the country and jurisdictions, as well as across services and programs. Western-style forms of governance do not always align with traditional Indigenous governance systems, and vice versa, making it sometimes challenging for these systems to work well together. This issue highlights the importance of incorporating Indigenous ways of being, knowing and understanding in the design, development, and delivery of services to Indigenous peoples, which is most easily accomplished if this work is Indigenous-led.

Complex delivery mechanisms

Currently, federal Indigenous programs and services are based on the application of various criteria, which can be a combination of: 1) distinction-based (i.e., First Nation, Inuit, Métis); 2) place (i.e., northern or southern); and/or, 3) residency (i.e., living on or off reserve; living in a claim settlement area; etc.). Registration under the Indian Act, residency on a recognized land base, and membership in a recognized Indigenous community are the three main criteria used to delimit those individuals entitled to certain program, treaty or statutory benefits. At times, the varying criteria for determining eligibility for programs and services can create a patchwork of conditions that do not necessarily address the disparate circumstances, interests or needs of all Indigenous peoples or individuals.

Small community populations and the relative remoteness of many Indigenous communities can also impact the quality of and access to services. A small population base can, for example, make it difficult to find and employ technicians to manage water filtration systems, teachers, nurses, or a police force. Access to these types of professionals is often taken for granted within larger population centres. A common co-relating factor to population size is the remoteness of many Indigenous communities, which can create pressure on two fronts as costs are proportionally higher for communities with fewer resources. While technology is beginning to address some of the barriers associated with delivering services to remote and small communities, such as eHealth and access to physicians via videoconference, more remains to be done to fully address the needs of individuals in these communities (i.e., transforming health services and access to broadband).

Finally, emergency events are increasing in both frequency and intensity (e.g., fire, flooding, communicable diseases, etc.). First Nations are 18 times more likely to be evacuated than non-Indigenous communities and are more susceptible to public health emergencies. For Inuit, climate change is causing permafrost to thaw is affecting infrastructure and causing sea ice to disappear which is threatening the animals they rely on for food and creating space for invasive species from the South as the water warms. The last decade has been the warmest on record throughout North America. Factors such as climate change, overall forest health, and increased development into wildland areas across the country have increased the threat to Indigenous communities. Recent wildfire seasons have illustrated the increased risk of Indigenous communities to wildfire, with the potential of devastating loss. Meanwhile, some First Nation communities need to be evacuated on a near-annual basis due to flooding. Further, we have been made even more keenly aware of the risks a pandemic like COVID-19 could have on remote Indigenous communities, with less access to health services, higher rates of pre-existing conditions (e.g., higher rates of tuberculosis in Inuit communities), and other socioeconomic factors such as food insecurity and mental wellness crises.

Understanding the challenges associated with this complex delivery environment is key to addressing obstacles that perpetuate socioeconomic gaps. Acknowledging that Indigenous communities experience and prioritize issues differently (through partnership and dialogue with those communities) allows the department to adjust approaches, change attitudes, and identify where further financial investments are required to improve access, close socioeconomic gaps and to work toward substantive equality.

Improving access to core services

Despite these complexities, Indigenous Services Canada's first order of business remains the delivery of core services to all Indigenous peoples, in a way that addresses their unique needs and circumstances. Over the last several years, the Government of Canada has invested significantly in closing gaps in access to services. A respectful approach that includes dialogue and partnerships is a fundamental first step to closing socioeconomic gaps, but it is clear that these efforts will fall short if they are not also properly resourced financially.

Indigenous Services Canada is increasing service-access and closing socioeconomic gaps by using a distinctions-based, as well as a place-based, approach that takes into account the unique needs of urban, rural, remote and northern environments in the delivery and promotion of services. In doing so, Indigenous Services Canada is well placed to support Indigenous partners in the design, implementation and evaluation of services that best address the socioeconomic gaps they face.

Key recent efforts to close gaps in access to services include the following:

Conclusion

Going forward, Indigenous Services Canada will continue to focus efforts on increasing Indigenous access to core services that are essential to closing socioeconomic gaps and achieving substantive equality. The department will do this by working with Indigenous partners, using co-developed initiatives, and being ever mindful of the department's ultimate objective to transfer the design, development, delivery and control of high quality, culturally-appropriate services to Indigenous peoples.

Introduction

The Department of Indigenous Services Act is clear on the department's mandate to transfer the responsibilities with respect to the development and provision of services to Indigenous organizations. The inclusion of this element in the Act is a deliberate recognition of the essential role that services play in the lives of Indigenous peoples, as well as the role that decision-making about service design, development and delivery plays in providing Indigenous communities with the ability to advance self-determination. This approach is also consistent with recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and with what the department has heard from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis over the past 25 years. Finally, it is reflective of efforts already underway toward a future where Indigenous communities and organizations control the design, development, and delivery of services.

Advancing this commitment is an important step toward restoring the structures needed and advocated for by Indigenous peoples to advance self-determination and lead the way to addressing gaps in socioeconomic conditions. While the transfer of the responsibility of services will take place incrementally and will vary depending on service area and community readiness, it will also require path-breaking solutions to ensure that the delivery of services aligns with the needs of the community and is done in a culturally relevant way as determined by the community. It is vital, therefore, that the transfer of services be Indigenous-led, guided by principles of self-determination, and advances at a pace established by First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities, institutions and organizations. In this way, the prevention of cultural and legal mistakes, stemming from top-down, colonial design in the delivery of services will not be repeated. The transfer of the design, development and delivery of services must also align with self-government initiatives, which experience has shown to deliver better outcomes for Indigenous peoples.

It is also essential to recognize that the transfer of services alone will not be enough to close socioeconomic gaps or advance substantive equality. Addressing gaps in socioeconomic conditions will require strategic investments in key areas that have the potential to generate economic development, address the social determinants of health, and provide support to Indigenous peoples to fully participate in Canada's social and economic fabric. Such investments can be catalysts to support self-determination and achieve substantive equality, as discussed earlier in this report.

Service transfer

Readiness is an essential prerequisite to service transfer on the part of both the federal government and Indigenous-led organizations. To establish the conditions for successful transfer of services, Indigenous Services Canada, along with other federal partners, has work to do internally to prepare for and realize change. This includes ensuring sufficient funding levels, improving program outcomes through greater Indigenous jurisdiction and control, and developing the legal and policy parameters to provide for mutual accountability under new arrangements. Progress towards the transfer of responsibilities as reflected in the 10-year grant under the New Fiscal Relationship program and the establishment of the First Nation's Health Authority in British Columbia, offer some indication of the extensive work required ahead. Indigenous Services Canada will be guided in its work by the new departmental Strategic Plan which seeks to instill guiding principles throughout the department's work culture: "The way we work is grounded in two guiding principles. We respect the diversity of Indigenous cultures and see their influence in the way we work. We recognize that good and honest partnerships are at the core of how we do things."

Placing Indigenous partners' distinct, lived experiences at the centre of service transfer strategies can help achieve substantive equality for communities and individuals at the grassroots level. Indigenous entities and institutions that reflect and meet the distinct needs of their citizens – culturally, linguistically, geographically, socially, economically, and operationally – are better placed to identify and address the various health, educational, social, and economic challenges facing their citizens. The work to change these complex systems and legal arrangements will require careful attention and the active participation of many different partners that currently have a role in service design and delivery. Different arrangements may be needed to transfer services at the scale required to ensure the service can be sustainably and effectively delivered. In some cases this might be at the community level, in others several communities or organizations may need to come together at an aggregate level to pool resources and expertise. The most appropriate model will be determined on a case by case basis, be informed by the needs of service users, and build on existing best practices such as the First Nations Health Authority in British Columbia.

To ensure that Indigenous partners are also ready to assume responsibility for services, support will be required to create the needed structures, institutions, organizations, and linkages to other systems. Enhancing Indigenous control over the design, development, and delivery of services, especially for core services (e.g., education, health, etc.), is a critical step needed in order to realize a future state in which Indigenous Services Canada has fulfilled its mandate under the Act that created the department with an eye towards its devolution. Some progress has already been made in this area in the context of health service delivery where self-determination has been identified as a key determinant of health.

There are persistent challenges and barriers in the provision of services to Indigenous peoples by both Indigenous Services Canada and other service providers that will likely continue until substantive equality is achieved and self-determination is advanced. While work is underway to move toward the transfer of control of services, Indigenous Services Canada will need to continue to meet its existing obligations and address emergency situations as they arise (e.g., fires, flooding, pandemics, etc.). Addressing gaps in socioeconomic conditions and access challenges will also provide a better platform from which Indigenous-led organizations can successfully manage and control the delivery of services to communities.

Canada has a rapidly expanding and diverse institutional landscape. A highly competent Indigenous public sector has been building over the last several years which will support more productive and informed processes, and build on existing relationships, best practices and lessons learned. To advance the transfer of services, Indigenous Services Canada is also working with other federal departments, and provincial and territorial counterparts, who have various roles in the provision of services to Indigenous peoples.

Key recent efforts to transfer the control over the delivery of services to Indigenous organizations include the following:

Investments in key areas

Strategic investments in key areas can generate economic development and address social determinants of health, in order to support Indigenous peoples' participation in Canada's social and economic fabric on their own terms. Such investments can also be catalysts to support self-determination and advance efforts toward achieving substantive equality. In the spirit of the prioritization of the transfer of the control over services described above, and in recognition that Indigenous-led service delivery has been shown to be an effective method of addressing gaps in socioeconomic conditions, it is clear that new investments need to be guided and informed by Indigenous perspectives in order to enable the desired transformation.

Recent examples of enabling investments in key areas include the following:

Conclusion

The transfer of services to Indigenous-led control and responsibility is intrinsically linked with the Government's commitment to advance self-determination, nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown, and government-to-government relationships and reconciliation. The environment in which the transfer of services is occurring is complex, with many different accountabilities, partners, service areas, delivery mechanisms, funding arrangements and requirements, and linkages with other systems. The momentum for change has been building over many years.

Indigenous Services Canada will work with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to determine pathways forward that reflect unique needs and choices of different communities. Work to advance Indigenous control over services will continue to occur at both the individual program level, as well as, holistically at the departmental level. To be reflective of the unique needs and situations of Indigenous communities and service areas, it is anticipated that a spectrum of approaches will be implemented. In some situations, Indigenous communities or organizations may be best placed to take full control of the design, development and delivery of services. In others, there may be a need to maintain a larger federal role in delivery or to develop a unique partnership or arrangement to meet the needs of a particular situation. No community or Indigenous-led organization will be compelled to take-on current Indigenous Services Canada responsibilities without their agreement and support.

Going forward, there needs to be a clear understanding of how Indigenous Services Canada and Indigenous communities and organizations will work in partnership to design and implement the transfer of services. This will require discussions, collaboration and will build upon best practices to ensure that the transfer process is consistent, effective and meets the needs of Indigenous peoples. If the transfer of services is to be successful, Indigenous peoples must be equal partners in development processes and in every aspect of the transfers, including options related to funding, data collection, reporting and evaluation methodologies. Indigenous Services Canada will continue to work towards a workforce that is culturally safe, supporting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities in creating the design, development, and delivery of high quality, holistic services with better outcomes for their members.

Indigenous Services Canada will also continue to consider strategic investments in key areas that have the potential to support Indigenous communities in advancing their economic development, health, social well-being, and otherwise contribute to their ability to self-determine their future. The department's approach in considering such investments will be consistent with the principles governing our approach to transfer the control of services to Indigenous organizations.