# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since the early 1990s, Employment and Social Development Canada has funded programs to help Indigenous people (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) improve their skills and find employment. Successive programs have maintained the same focus. In 2010, the Department launched its two current programs: the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy and the Skills and Partnership Fund.

This audit focused on whether Employment and Social Development Canada managed the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy and the Skills and Partnership Fund to increase the number of Indigenous people getting jobs and staying employed.

Why we did this audit

This audit is important because many Indigenous people face barriers to sustained employment, such as living in isolated communities and having low levels of education. They experience high unemployment rates and low average earnings, and often lack job stability. In 2007, the unemployment rate for Indigenous people was just under 11%. In comparison, it was just under 6% among non-Indigenous Canadians. By 2017, these unemployment rates had increased to just over 11% and just over 6%, respectively. Many Indigenous people need training and support to build the skills they need to find and keep jobs.

What we concluded

We concluded that Employment and Social Development Canada's management of the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy and the Skills and Partnership Fund was not sufficient to demonstrate that these programs increased the number of Indigenous people getting jobs and staying employed.

What we found about...

Program results

Overall, we found that Employment and Social Development Canada did not collect the data or define the performance indicators necessary to demonstrate whether the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy and the Skills and Partnership Fund were meeting their common overall objective of increasing the number of Indigenous people who had sustainable and meaningful employment. This is despite the fact that the Department has been delivering programs to support Indigenous employment for almost 30 years.

We also found that the Department allocated funding to agreement holders under the Strategy primarily on the basis of data from 1996 that did not reflect the current needs of the populations served. Moreover, the Department did not reallocate funding to the individual agreement holders who had been more consistently successful in training clients and helping them get jobs.

These findings matter because unemployment rates for Indigenous people are markedly higher than for the general Canadian population. The Department has allocated significant funds to the programs. Collecting adequate data and defining performance indicators would allow the Department to determine whether the programs are leading to meaningful and sustainable employment and whether changes are needed.

The Department did not use the data it collected to improve its programs
Recommendation. Employment and Social Development Canada should ensure that it has the information it needs to improve the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy and the Skills and Partnership Fund, where necessary, by working in collaboration with agreement holders to identify, collect, confirm, and analyze program data.

The Department did not allocate the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy funding on the basis of current needs
Recommendation. Employment and Social Development Canada should allocate funding under the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy in accordance with current needs and the capacities of individual agreement holders to achieve results. This should include

updating the funding formula,

using up-to-date population and socioeconomic data, and

considering past performance of individual agreement holders.

Recommendation. Employment and Social Development Canada should conduct the analysis necessary to determine whether its Indigenous labour market programs overlap with each other. The Department should also complete work to determine whether its labour market programs overlap with those offered by other federal, provincial, and territorial organizations. The Department should also take the necessary steps to address any identified areas of overlap.

Program management

Overall, we found that Employment and Social Development Canada supported agreement holders by providing them with guidance, information sessions, and administrative direction. It also worked with agreement holders to reduce their administrative burden. However, the Department did not provide agreement holders with sufficient labour market information to help them determine which services they should provide to clients to help them prepare for and find available jobs.

We also found that the Department did not consistently monitor agreement holders to know whether they fulfilled their obligations under contribution agreements. In particular, the Department did not ensure that agreement holders adequately monitored the other Indigenous organizations with which they had sub-agreements to provide services to clients on their behalf.

These findings matter because agreement holders need good labour market information to help them determine which services to provide to clients. Moreover, consistent monitoring of agreement holders can help the Department understand how it could further support agreement holders to deliver services.

The Department supported agreement holders to deliver services but did not provide sufficient labour market information
Recommendation. Employment and Social Development Canada, in collaboration with Indigenous organizations, should identify and provide labour market information that individual agreement holders need to align their services with demand in the labour market for their particular regions.

Recommendation. Employment and Social Development Canada, in collaboration with Indigenous organizations, should assess how the changes it has made to reporting requirements have affected the agreement holders' administrative burden and the Department's ability to manage the programs. It should also make any required adjustments.

The Department did not consistently monitor agreement holders
Recommendation. Employment and Social Development Canada should complete all required monitoring of agreement holders within the required timelines and use the resulting information to adjust the contribution agreements and overall programs as necessary.

Recommendation. Employment and Social Development Canada should more fully assess the risks related to sub-agreement holders, identify a strategy to address any identified risks, and implement the required changes.

Entity Responses to Recommendations

The entity agrees with our recommendation(s) and has responded (see List of Recommendations).

Related Information

For more information

Media Relations
Telephone.: 1-888-761-5953
E-mail: infomedia@oag-bvg.gc.ca

Twitter: OAG_BVG

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Report 6-Employment Training for Indigenous People-Employment and Social Development Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the early 1990s, Employment and Social Development Canada has funded programs to help Indigenous people (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) improve their skills and find employment. Successive programs have maintained the same focus. In 2010, the Department launched its two current programs: the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy and the Skills and Partnership Fund.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Indigenous People face the worst housing outcomes in the country.

Hon. Marc Miller, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations [1]

To understand the complexities of the housing situation, some basic information on the reserve system, created in 1876, is required. The two articles linked below provide an overview of on-reserve housing.

In Canada, the Indigenous population grew by 9.4 percent from 2016 to 2021; however, the housing stock in Indigenous communities did not increase even close to the same rate. The 2022 federal budget allocated $4.3 billion over seven years towards mitigating the housing crisis, a figure that falls far short of what is needed, according to the Assembly of First Nations, which asked for $44 billion to deal with overcrowding and homes in dire need of repair in reserves.

The housing crisis at a glance:

18 percent of Indigenous households living in urban, rural and northern areas are experiencing core housing needs, meaning their housing falls below at least one of the adequacy, affordability or suitability standards.

18.8 percent of the Indigenous population live in low-income households.

Nearly a quarter of Indigenous children ages 14 and younger live in low-income households in 2021, more than double that of non-Indigenous children.

Almost one in six Indigenous people lived in a home needing major repairs in 2021, a rate nearly three times higher than the non-Indigenous population.

17.1 percent of Indigenous people live in overcrowded housing, almost double the number of non-Indigenous people living in crowded housing

Inuit living in crowded housing: 40.1 percent

First Nations living in crowded housing: 21.4 percent

Métis living in crowded housing: 7.9 percent

Indigenous people are overrepresented among the 35,000 people who experience homelessness each night in Canada.

Photo: Unsplash

Indigenous people are more than twice as likely to experience hidden homelessness (couch surfing), especially in the north, compared to their non-indigenous counterparts.

The higher rates of homelessness for Indigenous people are associated with systemic barriers in education, employment, and the intergenerational effects of colonization.

Indigenous people living off-reserve have lower homeownership rates and are more likely to live in subsidized housing.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there is a $636 million annual gap between what Indigenous households living in off-reserve rural, urban and northern communities pay for housing and what is deemed affordable.

Assembly of First Nations and the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy released a joint study in 2021 that identified the need for housing in First Nation communities at about 55,000 new units and 81,000 renovations on reserve.

Impacts of the housing crisis

Physical and mental health & housing

As noted above, Indigenous people frequently live in overcrowded houses that need significant repairs. Common issues include poor ventilation, broken windows, leaky roofs, and water-damaged walls, all of which create a fertile environment for the rapid spread of viruses. Moisture in the walls and ceilings leads to mould growth, triggering asthma and respiratory diseases.

Overcrowded living conditions impact mental health in many ways:

Stress, anxiety and depression

Sleep problems

Physical health problems

Relationship difficulties

Education & housing

Not having access to a quiet space for homework and studying affects a child's school performance. Poor performance in school impacts a child's opportunity for higher education and employment. Children growing up in crowded houses may not get the sleep they need, leading to difficulty concentrating in school, fatigue and behavioural issues. Behavioural issues can result in negative interactions with teachers and peers, which may, later in life, impact personal and professional relationships.

Employment & housing

When physical and mental health and education are negatively impacted, finding and keeping stable employment is also impacted.

Culture & housing

The on-reserve housing crisis drives some community members to relocate to urban centres for better accommodation. Separated from family, community and culture, they are often at their most vulnerable. Students who leave communities for higher or better education opportunities may be unable to return to their communities due to the housing crisis.

Family violence & housing

Empty red dresses representing missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and two-spirit people. Photo: Bob Joseph

Overcrowded, unsafe housing is a factor in the higher rates of gender-based violence against Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people. Housing shortages may force women and children to remain in unsafe living situations.

Climate change & housing

Indigenous communities are often identified as most vulnerable to climate change, specifically fire and flood events. When homes are destroyed, it exacerbates the already crowded living conditions as the same number of people are now living in fewer homes.

Reserves were frequently located on floodplains. People living in flood-prone reserves deal with substantial risks, including property damage, deteriorated health, and disrupted livelihoods and education due to repeated and sometimes prolonged, evacuations. Emergency removal from their homes and separation from family is also traumatic for residential school survivors.

80.7% of the 985 Indigenous reserves have some flood exposure in terms of either population or residential properties at the 100-year return period. [2]

The Kashechewan First Nation community members have been evacuated 14 times to at least 22 host communities across Ontario since 2004 (consecutively from 2004 to 2008 and 2012-2019) because of actual flooding events or flooding risk and the potential failure of the dike that surrounds the community. [3]

Reserves are also located in forests prone to wildland fires, and it's projected that wildland fires will increase in number, size, and intensity due to climate warming. Reserves are often remote with limited access, which makes evacuation challenging and exacerbates firefighting efforts.

Approximately 12.3% of the Canadian population currently live in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), which includes 32.1% of the on-reserve First Nations population. Currently, 17.8% of the on-reserve WUI population is exposed to FRI of ≤250 years, compared with only 4.7% of the remaining WUI population. [4]

The housing crisis is at the epicentre of many barriers Indigenous Peoples endure. The Liberals have pledged to develop an urban, rural, and northern Indigenous housing strategy. They have budgeted $300 million over five years to allow the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to work with Indigenous communities to build to create a plan.

For those looking for further learning, our Working Effectively with Indigenous Peoples® training has helped thousands of individuals and organizations better understand Indigenous history, culture and how the Indian Act affects Indigenous Peoples today.

[1] Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, The Effects of the Housing Shortage on Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Evidence, 4 March 2022
[2] Chakraborty, L., Thistlethwaite, J., Minano, A. et al. Leveraging Hazard, Exposure, and Social Vulnerability Data to Assess Flood Risk to Indigenous Communities in Canada. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 12, 821-838 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-021-00383-1
[3] Thistlethwaite, J., Minano, A., Henstra, D., Scott, D., Indigenous Reserve Lands in Canada Face High Flood Risk, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Policy Brief No. 159 - April 2020
[4] Erni, S., Johnston, L., Boulanger, Y., Manka, F., Bernier, P., Eddy, B., Christianson, A., Swystun, T., Gauthier, S. Exposure of the Canadian wildland-human interface and population to wildland fire, under current and future climate conditions 9 April 2021
Featured photo: Siksika Nation, Alberta - May 2, 2021, Shutterstock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inadequate Housing and Crowded Living Conditions - #3 of 8 Key Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article explains some of the basic information about the reserve system to understand the housing situation's complexities better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to text

Text begins

Highlights

In 2021, over one in six Indigenous people (17.1%) lived in crowded housing that was considered not suitable for the number of people who lived there.

The share of Indigenous people living in crowded housing declined overall among all three groups (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) from 2016 to 2021, including among First Nations people with Registered or Treaty Indian status living on reserve. However, for Inuit living in Nunavut, the Inuvialuit region and outside Inuit Nunangat, the share living in crowded housing increased from 2016 to 2021.

Multigenerational households were the most common living arrangement among First Nations people living in crowded housing (34.5%), followed by couples living with children (21.7%). Among Métis and Inuit living in crowded housing, the most common living arrangement was couples living with children.

Indigenous people were almost twice as likely to live in crowded housing in 2021, compared with the non-Indigenous population (17.1% versus 9.4%). However, the gap between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous population narrowed by 1.7 percentage points from 2016 to 2021.

In 2021, 16.4% of Indigenous people lived in a dwelling that was in need of major repairs.

First Nations people and Métis were less likely to be living in a dwelling in need of major repairs in 2021, compared with five years earlier. For Inuit overall, the share living in a dwelling in need of major repairs in 2021 was similar to 2016 levels, while Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat (+1.2 percentage points) were more likely to live in housing needing major repairs.

Indigenous people were almost three times more likely to live in a dwelling in need of major repairs (16.4%) in 2021 than the non-Indigenous population (5.7%). Nevertheless, the gap between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous population narrowed by 2.3 percentage points from 2016 to 2021.

Introduction

Adequate and suitable housing that provides residents with a safe environment to live and work in is essential for mental and physical well-being and a higher quality of life. Living in poor housing conditions, such as houses with overcrowding, mould or structural defects, is associated with the spread of infectious and respiratory diseases, chronic illness, injuries, and poorer mental health. ,

In 2019, the National Housing Strategy Act declared that "the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law" and recognized that having an affordable and safe place to live gives individuals and families the environment they need to succeed, grow and live in dignity. However, many Indigenous people in Canada live in inadequate housing, particularly among those living in remote or northern communities.

Although the 2016 Census of Population revealed that housing conditions among Indigenous people had improved overall, they remained much more likely to be living in inadequate housing than the non-Indigenous population.

This article uses new data from the 2021 Census of Population to report on housing conditions among Indigenous people in Canada. In addition, it will examine how housing conditions have changed among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit since 2016.

Over one in six Indigenous people live in crowded housing

Over one in six Indigenous people (17.1%, or 309,345 people) lived in housing that was considered not suitable for the number of people who lived there, according to the National Occupancy Standard. Housing suitability is a measure of crowding, which refers to whether a dwelling has enough bedrooms for the size and composition of the household.

Crowded housing is categorized into dwellings that have a shortfall of one, two, or three or more bedrooms. Just over 1 in 10 Indigenous people (10.7%) lived in housing that had a one-bedroom shortfall, 3.7% lived in housing with a two-bedroom shortfall, and 2.8% lived in housing with a shortfall of three or more bedrooms.

Nevertheless, the share of Indigenous people living in crowded housing declined by 0.9 percentage points from 2016 to 2021.

While the share of Indigenous people living in crowded housing remained much higher than the non-Indigenous population (17.1% versus 9.4%), the gap between the two groups narrowed from 9.5 percentage points in 2016 to 7.8 percentage points in 2021.

Fewer Indigenous people live in a dwelling in need of major repairs, compared with five years earlier

Approximately one in six Indigenous people (16.4%, or 295,745 people) lived in a dwelling that was in need of major repairs in 2021, down 2.7 percentage points from 2016.

Dwellings in need of major repairs include those that require major repairs such as defective plumbing or electrical wiring and those that require structural repairs to walls, floors or ceilings.

Although Indigenous people were almost three times more likely to live in a dwelling in need of major repairs (16.4%) than the non-Indigenous population (5.7%) in 2021, the gap narrowed by 2.3 percentage points from 2016.

First Nations people living on reserve are more likely to live in crowded housing

Over one in five First Nations people (21.4%, or 224,280 people) lived in crowded housing in 2021, with 12.9% living in housing with a one-bedroom shortfall, 4.8% living in housing with a two-bedroom shortfall and 3.8% living in housing with a shortfall of three or more bedrooms. Overall, the share of First Nations people living in crowded housing declined by 1.2 percentage points from 2016.

First Nations people who had Registered or Treaty Indian status under the Indian Act were over twice as likely to live in crowded housing, compared with First Nations people without Registered or Treaty Indian status (25.4% versus 11.2%).

First Nations people with Registered or Treaty Indian status living on reserve were almost twice as likely to live in crowded housing, compared with those who lived off reserve (35.7% versus 18.4%). However, the share of First Nations people with Registered or Treaty Indian status living in a crowded dwelling on a reserve fell at a faster pace from 2016 to 2021, compared with that of their counterparts living off reserve (-0.6 percentage points versus -0.2 percentage points).

Just over one-third (34.5%) of First Nations people in crowded housing were living in a multigenerational household, with at least one person living with a child and a grandchild. This share was higher (44.9%) among First Nations people with Registered or Treaty Indian status living on reserve.

In multigenerational households, grandparents play an important role in raising children and passing on traditional values, knowledge and teachings to younger generations. In addition, living in a multigenerational household may be a family's solution to housing issues in their community, such as affordability or housing shortages.

Other common living arrangements among First Nations people living in crowded housing included couples living with children (21.7%) and one-parent families (18.2%).

Nationally, First Nations people were most likely to live in crowded housing in Manitoba (35.7%) and Saskatchewan (34.3%) and least likely to do so in Atlantic Canada.

Fewer First Nations people living in a dwelling in need of major repairs

In 2021, almost one in five First Nations people (19.7%, or 206,845 people) were living in a dwelling in need of major repairs, down 3.9 percentage points from 2016.

First Nations people with Registered or Treaty Indian status were more likely to live in a dwelling in need of major repairs, compared with those without Registered or Treaty Indian status (22.8% versus 12.0%).

Over one-third of First Nations people with Registered or Treaty Indian status living on reserve lived in a dwelling in need of major repairs (37.4%), almost three times the rate of their counterparts living off reserve (12.7%). Nevertheless, the share of First Nations people with Registered or Treaty Indian status living in a dwelling in need of major repairs on a reserve fell at a faster pace from 2016 to 2021 than the share of those living off reserve (-6.5 percentage points versus -1.4 percentage points).

Nationally, the share of First Nations people living in dwellings in need of major repairs was highest in the Northwest Territories (30.0%) and Manitoba (28.7%) and lowest in Newfoundland and Labrador (8.6%).

Approximately 1 in 12 Métis live in crowded housing

Approximately 1 in 12 Métis (7.9%, or 49,565 people) were living in crowded housing in 2021, down 0.6 percentage points from 2016.

In 2021, 6.2% of Métis were living in housing with a one-bedroom shortfall, 1.3% were living in housing with a two-bedroom shortfall and 0.5% were living in housing with a shortfall of three or more bedrooms.

Among Métis living in crowded housing in 2021, one-quarter were living in a household composed of a couple with children (25.6%). Other common living arrangements among Métis living in crowded housing included one-parent families (23.3%) and multigenerational households (22.0%).

Nationally, the share of Métis living in crowded housing was higher in Yukon (10.9%), the Northwest Territories (10.7%) and Manitoba (10.0%), and lower in Newfoundland and Labrador (4.4%) and Nova Scotia (4.9%).

In 2021, 335,350 Métis were living in a census metropolitan area (CMA) of 100,000 or more people. Métis living in a CMA were more likely to live in crowded housing, compared with their counterparts living outside a large city (8.3% versus 7.5%). Among those living in large cities, the highest share of Métis living in crowded housing was seen in Kingston (14.8%), Toronto (11.3%) and Winnipeg (11.1%).

Métis less likely to be living in a dwelling in need of major repairs, compared with five years earlier

In 2021, approximately 1 in 10 Métis (10.0%, or 62,640 people) were living in a dwelling in need of major repairs, down 1.2 percentage points from 2016.

The share of Métis living in a dwelling in need of major repairs was lowest in Newfoundland and Labrador (8.2%), British Columbia (9.0%), and Alberta (9.0%), and highest in the Northwest Territories (19.4%), New Brunswick (13.7%) and Yukon (13.2%).

Métis living outside a large city were more likely to live in a dwelling in need of major repairs, compared with their counterparts living in a CMA (11.5% versus 8.7%). However, among Métis residing in CMAs, the share living in a dwelling in need of major repairs was higher for those in Trois-Rivières, Quebec (15.9%); Saint John, New Brunswick (14.6%); and Moncton, New Brunswick (12.5%).

Just over half of Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat-specifically Nunavut-live in crowded housing

Just over two in five Inuit (40.1%, or 28,260 people) lived in crowded housing in 2021, with 20.7% living in housing with a one-bedroom shortfall, 10.0% with a two-bedroom shortfall and 9.4% with a shortfall of three or more bedrooms.

This large share of Inuit living in crowed housing was mainly driven by those living in Inuit Nunangat, who were four times more likely to live in crowded housing than Inuit living outside Inuit Nunangat (52.9% versus 11.4%). Inuit Nunangat is the traditional homeland of Inuit, which includes Nunatsiavut (Labrador), Nunavik (northern Quebec), Nunavut and the Inuvialuit region (Northwest Territories).

Among Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat, those living in Nunavut (60.0%) were the most likely to live in crowded housing, while those in Nunatsiavut (17.7%) were the least likely to do so.

Within Inuit Nunangat, the lack of access to appropriate and affordable housing is well documented. Inuit living in these regions face a number of challenges, including high construction, operation and maintenance costs. In addition, due to barriers such as higher costs of living, fewer employment opportunities, lower income levels and the lack of housing markets for resale, many Inuit rely on public or subsidized housing.

Among Inuit living in crowded housing in 2021, the living arrangements were mostly made up of couples living with children (36.3%) and multigenerational households (35.4%). Over one-third of Inuit living in crowded housing in Inuit Nunangat were couples living with children (37.2%) or multigenerational households (36.7%). Outside Inuit Nunangat, approximately one-quarter of Inuit living in crowded housing were couples living with children (27.6%) or multigenerational households (22.9%).

Overall, the share of Inuit living in crowded housing edged down 0.6 percentage points from 2016 to 2021. There were fewer Inuit living in crowded dwellings in Nunatsiavut (-2.5 percentage points) and Nunavik (-5.1 percentage points) compared with five years earlier, and more Inuit living in crowded housing in Nunavut (+3.6 percentage points), the Inuvialuit region (+1.9 percentage points) and outside Inuit Nunangat (+0.4 percentage points).

Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat are more likely to live in a dwelling in need of major repairs

Over one-quarter of Inuit (26.2%, or 18,460 people) were living in a dwelling in need of major repairs in 2021. However, Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat were almost three times more likely to live in a dwelling in need of major repairs, compared with their counterparts living outside Inuit Nunangat (32.7% versus 11.5%).

Within Inuit Nunangat, approximately one-third of Inuit in Nunavut (35.5%) and the Inuvialuit region (33.0%) were living in a dwelling in need of major repairs, compared with one-quarter of Inuit living in Nunatsiavut (28.2%) and Nunavik (26.5%).

Overall, Inuit were as likely to be living in dwellings in need of major repairs in 2021 as they were in 2016. However, Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat were more likely to be living in a dwelling in need of major repairs (+1.2 percentage points) compared with five years earlier, while Inuit living outside Inuit Nunangat (-0.6 percentage points) were slightly less likely to be living in a dwelling requiring major repairs.

Looking ahead

In the coming months, releases from the Census of Population will provide more comprehensive data for Indigenous people living in Canada. Upcoming data releases for the 2021 Census include education and labour force characteristics, which will provide a more comprehensive socioeconomic portrait of Indigenous populations in Canada.

Additional information

Additional analysis on First Nations people, Métis and Inuit can be found in the Daily article; in the Census in Brief article on Métis in Canada, Catalogue no. 98-200-X; and in the article on shelter costs on reserve.

Additional information on First Nations people, Métis and Inuit can be found in the data tables; the Census Profile, Catalogue no. 98-316-X; and the Focus on Geography Series, Catalogue no. 98-404-X.

For details on the concepts, definitions and variables used in the 2021 Census of Population, please consult the Dictionary, Census of Population, 2021, Catalogue no. 98-301-X.

In addition to response rates and other data quality information, the Guide to the Census of Population, Catalogue no. 98-304-X, provides an overview of the various phases of the census, including content determination, sampling design, collection, data processing, data quality assessment, confidentiality guidelines and dissemination.

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by Alexandria Melvin and Thomas Anderson of Statistics Canada's Centre for Indigenous Statistics and Partnerships, with the assistance of other staff members in that centre, and the collaboration of staff members of the Census Subject Matter Secretariat, Census Operations Division, Communications Branch, and Data Access and Dissemination Branch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Housing conditions among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit in Canada from the 2021 Census

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Census in Brief article reports on housing conditions among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit in 2021. It describes the share of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit living in crowded dwellings and dwellings in need of major repair, and reports variation by provinces, territories, and the regions of Inuit Nunangat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tip of the iceberg: The true state of drinking water advisories in First Nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Until recently, a boil-water advisory had been in place in the First Nation of Shoal Lake 40 community for more than 20 years, writes Kerry Black, Schulich School of Engineering, in Conversation Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Causes of unsafe drinking water on Indigenous reserves — The Indigenous Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Causes of Inadequate Water in First Nations Communities Poor drinking water on First Nations reserves has many different causes that are all influenced by many different factors. Marginalization Indigenous people living on the reserves have substantially poorer quality drinking water than is

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chapter 13 – Half of children in foster care are Indigenous - Vanier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Vanier Institute of the Family is a national, independent, think tankdedicated to understanding families and family life in Canada.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indigenous foster children living in private households: Rates and sociodemographic characteristics of foster children and their households

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The current study uses the 2011 National Household Survey and the 2016 and 2021 Censuses to provide data on the number of Indigenous foster children in private households, foster child rates, and disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster care rates between 2011 and 2021. Subsequently, select sociodemographic characteristics of Indigenous children in foster care and household characteristics are explored using the 2021 Census.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Marta Burczycka and Adam Cotter

Release date: October 4, 2023

On this page
Start of text box
Highlights
End of text box
Introduction

In Canada, Indigenous women and girls continue to experience many forms of violence at higher rates than their non-Indigenous counterparts-including homicide, the most extreme form of violence ( Miladinovic & Mulligan, 2015; David & Jaffray, 2022; Perreault, 2022). Indigenous peoples and their advocates have long drawn attention to the disproportionate rate of violence experienced by First Nations, Métis and Inuit women and girls, and have pointed to its roots in colonialism and forced assimilation; more recently, national and international organizations have amplified these voices to denounce the intergenerational trauma and socioeconomic marginalization created by these policies ( Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People National Action Plan, 2021; National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019; Native Women's Association of Canada, 2010; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women, 2015). As is the case in many communities who struggle with poor mental and physical health, poverty, addictions and discrimination, women and girls are often subjected to their worst consequences, including extreme violence ( David & Jaffray, 2022; Heidinger, 2022a; Heidinger, 2022b; Sutton, 2023).

The over-representation of Indigenous peoples as both victims and people accused of crimes, as well as issues related to accessing justice, are interwoven into the courts process. Pathways through the Canadian criminal courts can be complex, starting where police investigations end and culminating with a decision and sentence. Along the way, decisions are made about the charges seen in court, the disposition of those charges, and any potential verdicts and sentences passed down. Using data from the Homicide Survey and the Integrated Criminal Court Survey, this Juristat article examines how homicides of Indigenous women and girls moved through the court system between 2009 and 2021, how they were treated at crucial decision points along the way, and how their outcomes compared to homicides of victims who were non-Indigenous. While the linked data used for this analysis provide important information with which to contextualize court outcomes of homicides of Indigenous women and girls, they are not without their limitations. For more information, please see Data sources and methodology.

While a distinctions-based approach-that is, an approach that allows for cases involving First Nations, Métis and Inuit women and girls to be considered separately-is ideal, the relatively small number of individual victims belonging to these groups means that in most cases, a pan-Indigenous approach to the analysis is taken. Additionally, throughout this article the main comparator group to Indigenous women and girls is non-Indigenous women and girls. For readability, the terms "Indigenous victims" and "non-Indigenous victims" are often used, without making reference to victims' gender. Unless otherwise noted, these terms refer to the women and girls within these groups.

Section 1: Homicides of Indigenous women and girls

Homicide rates for Indigenous women and girls are six times higher than for their non-Indigenous counterparts

Between 2009 and 2021, 490 Indigenous women and girls were the victims of homicide. This translated into a rate of 4.27 Indigenous women and girls killed per 100,000 Indigenous women and girls in the population-a rate that was six times higher than for their non-Indigenous counterparts (0.73). While Indigenous women and girls made up between 2% and 3% of the Canadian population during this time, they represented between 5% and 7% of homicide victims ( Table 1). The overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples, and Indigenous women and girls in particular, as victims of homicide and other violent crimes in Canada is well-documented (see Text box 1).

Among the 490 Indigenous women and girls killed between 2009 and 2021, 60% were First Nations, 8% were Inuit, and 7% were Métis. For 24% of victims, police either did not know the Indigenous group to which victims belonged or did not report that information to Statistics Canada ( Table 2).

The rate of homicide against Indigenous women and girls varied from year to year, ranging from a low of 3.28 per 100,000 in 2016 to a high of 5.15 in 2009. Each year, the rate of Indigenous women and girls killed was higher than the rates of non-Indigenous women and girls, and of men and boysNote ( Table 1).

Start of text box 1

Text box 1
Victimization of Indigenous women and girls in Canada

End of text box 1

Nine in ten homicides of Indigenous women and girls from 2009 to 2021 were solved

The majority (87%) of homicides involving Indigenous women and girls reported by police between 2009 and 2021 were cleared (solved)-that is, an accused person was identified in relation to the case ( Table 2). This proportion was slightly lower than in homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls (90%).

While 13% of homicides of Indigenous women and girls-representing 65 victims-remained unsolved at the time of the present study, the proportion varied between Indigenous identity groups. Among First Nations women and girls specifically, 12% of homicides remained unsolved; this was also the case for 23% of homicides of Métis women and girls, 5% of homicides of Inuit women and girls and 16% of homicides of Indigenous women and girls whose distinction was unknown to police or not reported by them. It should be noted that homicide investigations can be complex and lengthy; thus, for some victims, the homicide may be noted as unsolved because the investigation is ongoing. Notably, when it came to the most recent homicides included in the study-those reported by police in 2021-higher proportions remained unsolved, including 29% where the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl and 17% where the victim was non-Indigenous.

Data from 2015 to 2021Note show that unsolved homicides involving Indigenous women and girls more often involved a victim who had been reported missing at the time of her death (32%) than who had not (13%). Similarly, homicides of Indigenous women and girls were more often unsolved when the cause of death was unknown or not stated by police (66%). Police may choose not to report some facts of a homicide to the Homicide Survey if the investigation is ongoing.

It should be noted that many Indigenous peoples and the organizations which advocate for them describe the difficulties encountered by Indigenous survivors and victims' families in their interactions with police ( Native Women's Association of Canada, 2010; National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019). These difficulties can manifest as barriers to the kind of information sharing that is necessary for police investigations and can lead to homicides remaining unsolved for longer periods of time.

Most often, the person accused of the homicides was also Indigenous

Research has shown that most women and girls-regardless of their ethnicity or Indigenous identity-are killed by an intimate partner, family member or someone they know ( David & Jaffray, 2022). As such, their killers are often part of their community and thus may be people with whom they share cultural and other commonalities. Overall, eight in ten (81%) Indigenous women and girls were killed by someone they knew, most often an acquaintance (24%), a spouse (23%) or a family member (22%) ( Table 2).Note Most solved homicides of Indigenous women and girls involved an accused person who was also Indigenous. Specifically, between 2014 to 2021Note , eight in ten (86%) persons accused of killing an Indigenous woman or girl were themselves Indigenous; when the victim was a non-Indigenous woman or girl, more than nine in ten (94%) persons accused were also non-Indigenous ( Table 3). Many observers have noted that early exposure to family violence, family breakdown due to residential schools and forced apprehension of Indigenous children, and other factors related to colonialism are related to violence within Indigenous communities ( Clark, 2019; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015).

The Indigenous identity of those accused of the homicides of Indigenous women and girls is noteworthy for several reasons, including the implications for how those offenders are treated in the justice system (see Text box 2). For the present study, which aims to examine court outcomes of cases linked to Indigenous victims, offenders' pathways through the justice system are particularly relevant. In Canada, Indigenous people are overrepresented among those accused of crime and those who are incarcerated ( Department of Justice 2016; Robinson et al., 2023; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015), and advocates and government have sought to better understand and address this disparity.

8 in 10 homicides of Indigenous women and girls result in police laying or recommending homicide charges

When police become aware of a homicide, the most common outcome is the laying or recommendation of a charge. When the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl, it was more likely that charges would be laid or recommended in relation to the case. Charges were laid or recommended by police in the majority (79%) of the 490 homicides of Indigenous women and girls which occurred between 2009 and 2021, including 81% of homicides where the victim was First Nations, 71% where she was Métis, 79% where she was Inuit, and 77% where her Indigenous identity group was unknown ( Table 2). In contrast, a smaller proportion (71%) of homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls were cleared with the laying of a charge.

Start of text box 2

Text box 2
Overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the Canadian justice system

End of text box 2

Fewer homicides of Indigenous women and girls considered by police to be first-degree murder

The definitions of both first- and second-degree murder require that the accused person either intended to cause the death of the victim or intended to cause injuries that he or she knew would likely cause the victim to die, in situations where there is culpability ( e.g., the death is not accidental or in self-defence; Wilson, 2010). First-degree murder differs from second-degree mainly in that first-degree murder is planned and deliberate, and also applies in specific situations outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code (for example, when a murder occurs during a sexual assault).Note The definition of manslaughter, meanwhile, is more difficult to pin down: according to the Criminal Code, "culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter."Note

Police who investigate homicides determine what the most serious violation (MSV) was in the incident-for example, whether the MSV was first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter. Police-reported data show that overall, homicides of Indigenous women and girls tended to be classified by police as having relatively less serious violations (less serious MSVs), compared to homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls. Specifically, first-degree murder-the most serious type of homicide-was considered to be the MSV half as often when the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl (27%) than when she was non-Indigenous (54%) ( Table 4). Instead, second-degree murder was the most common MSV when the victim was Indigenous (60%) and less so when she was not (39%). Further, an MSV of manslaughter was also more common in homicides of Indigenous women and girls (13%) compared to non-Indigenous victims (7%).

First-degree murder charges least common when victim, accused both Indigenous

The ways in which decisions about charges are made vary across jurisdictions in Canada. Much of this variation is at the local, provincial or territorial level, and has to do with which entity-the police or the Crown prosecution-decides which charges are pursued in homicide cases. In most jurisdictions, varying degrees of input from Crown prosecutors influence what charges are ultimately laid by police.Note

The severity of charges laid or recommended by police in homicides of Indigenous women and girls appears to correlate with the Indigenous identity of both the victim and the person accused of the crime. Looking at police-reported data covering 2014 to 2021, first-degree murder charges were most common when both the victim and the accused were non-Indigenous (44%) and least common when both were Indigenous (18%) (Chart 1). Notably, first-degree murder charges in homicides of Indigenous women and girls were laid or recommended more often when the accused was a non-Indigenous person (35%, versus 18% when the accused was Indigenous).

Manslaughter charges were more common in homicides of women and girls where the accused was Indigenous, regardless of the Indigenous identity of the victim. In homicides with an Indigenous accused, 17% where the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl and 16% where she was non-Indigenous resulted in a manslaughter charge being laid or recommended. When the accused was not Indigenous, these proportions were 10% and 9%, respectively.

Chart 1 start

Data table for Chart 1
﻿

First-degree murder

Second-degree murder

Manslaughter

percent

Chart 1 end

Indigenous identity of the victim increases the odds of manslaughter charge being laid

To help identify factors which may increase or decrease the odds of an accused person being charged with manslaughter as opposed to first- or second-degree murder, a multivariate analysis was conducted ( Table 5).Note Various characteristics of victims, accused persons and incidents of police-reported homicides occurring between 2014 and 2021 were entered into a model to see if any one factor independently increased or decreased the odds of a manslaughter charge being laid or recommended by police.

The results of this analysis found that the victim's being Indigenous increased the odds of a manslaughter charge being laid by police, as opposed to a charge of murder. Even when other relevant factors related to the homicide were considered-including victims' gender, the Indigenous identity of the accused, and their relationship-the odds that police laid or recommended a manslaughter charge as opposed to first- or second-degree murder increased by 1.5 times when the victim was Indigenous.

Other factors were also identified as having independent associations with higher odds of a manslaughter charge: a cause of death that was anything other than shooting or stabbing (7.3 times the odds), the accused person having committed another, related, offence in conjunction with the homicide (1.5 times), and an argument or quarrel being the reported motive behind the crime (1.3 times). These factors may be related to a lack of premeditation and intention, which are associated with first- and second-degree murder but not with manslaughter.

The Indigenous identity of the accused did not impact the odds of a manslaughter charge versus first- or second-degree murder being laid or recommended by police. The same was true with respect to whether the victim and the accused had a family or intimate relationship, whether the accused was intoxicated at the time of the crime, or whether the accused was involved in illegal activities when the homicide occurred.

It should be noted that police-reported information about some aspects of homicides rely on the perceptions and interpretations of police officers and others involved in the justice system. Critics have suggested that systemic biases pervade the Canadian justice system, including at the policing level, which particularly affect Indigenous people and are rooted in racist stereotypes ( Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015).

Homicides cleared through something other than a charge more common with non-Indigenous victims

In some cases, a homicide is considered solved, but no charges are laid against an accused. For instance, the accused may be deceased, whether from suicide or other causes, or may have been committed to a mental health facility and be unable to stand trial. These incidents are considered "cleared otherwise", and as such will never enter the criminal courts system.

Notably, between 2009 and 2021, homicides that were cleared otherwise were markedly more common when the victim was a non-Indigenous woman or girl than when she was Indigenous. Overall, 19% of all homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls were cleared this way, compared to 7% of homicides of Indigenous women and girls ( Table 2). In other words, homicides of Indigenous women and girls were more likely to proceed to court, at least in terms of whether their homicide was cleared by charge or cleared otherwise.

Homicides in which the accused person commits suicide are more common in situations of intimate partner or family violence ( Brennan & Boyce, 2013). Overall, 57% of homicides against Indigenous women and girls were committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner or family member-a lower proportion than among non-Indigenous women and girls (64%; Table 2). Since the death of the accused is more common with intimate partner and family homicide, this difference may help to explain why clearance by means other than a charge is more common when the victim was non-Indigenous. However, homicides being cleared otherwise are less common for Indigenous victims even within these relationship categories: for instance, 18% of homicides where an Indigenous woman was killed by her spouse were cleared otherwise, compared to 34% of spousal homicides where the victim was non-Indigenous ( Table 2). This pattern was consistent for homicides committed by a current or former intimate partner (9% for Indigenous victims versus 18% for their non-Indigenous counterparts) and homicides committed by family members (6% versus 17%).

Section 2: Court charges linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls

Explaining the linkage and selecting the unit of analysis

To understand how charges related to the homicides of Indigenous women and girls are processed within the Canadian criminal court system, police-reported data from the Homicide Survey were linked with data from the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey and the Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) to allow for the analysis of how incidents moved through the court system.

Homicides reported by police between 2009 and 2021, where there was at least one accused person identified, and charges were laid or recommended by police, were considered in scope and were linked to the ICCS data files for the fiscal years 2009/2010 through to 2020/21.Note Homicides that were uncleared (unsolved) and homicides where an accused was identified but no charges were laid (cleared otherwise) were excluded from the study as these incidents did not move to court.

Using these criteria, there were 389 Indigenous women and girls who were victims of homicide between 2009 and 2021 where police laid or recommended charges against at least one accused person included in this analysis. Of these, 185 victims of homicide incidents (48%) successfully linked to at least one charge in court. This linkage rate is comparable to what was seen for non-Indigenous women and girls (512 of 1,156, or 44%) (Figure 1). Some incidents that did not successfully link to a completed charge may still be before the courts, particularly in recent years where the linkage rates were noticeably lower.Note

Figure 1 start

Data table for Figure 1
﻿

Progression through the criminal justice system

Homicides of Indigenous women and girls

Homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls

number

percent

number

percent

490

Note ...: not applicable

1,633

Note ...: not applicable

193

Note ...: not applicable

503

Note ...: not applicable

Figure 1 end

Given that the focus of analysis is on the processing and outcomes criminal court cases associated with incidents of homicide, the primary units of analyses in the next two sections focus on charges ( Section 2) and cases ( Section 3) linked to homicides.Note Note Cases and charges can link to multiple incidents or victims if they are processed by the courts within a single case. This means that in some instances, particularly when there were multiple accused persons, the same victim or incident may be counted more than once in this analysis if there was more than one case associated with their homicide.Note However, this approach emphasizes the characteristics and contexts of each case to provide an overview of the decisions and sentencing outcomes related to the homicides of Indigenous women and girls in Canada.

Manslaughter charges in Canadian criminal courts more common when victim was Indigenous

Between 2009 and 2021, there were 193 completed court cases in Canada that were linked to the homicide of an Indigenous woman or girl, including 601 individual criminal charges. These charges ranged from first degree murder to property crimes and crimes against the administration of justice. Among these, 221 or 37% were homicide charges; specifically, 22% were charges of first- or second-degree murder and 15% were manslaughter. There were no charges of infanticide ( Table 6). There were more homicide charges than there were individual victims as some homicides involved multiple accused persons, each of whom would have been charged individually; additionally, Crown prosecutors can elect to lay multiple, different homicide charges ( e.g., second-degree murder and manslaughter) in relation to the same one homicide victim.

Notably, charges of first- or second-degree murder were less common in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls than in cases where the victim was not Indigenous ( Table 6). Of homicide charges specifically, 59% of charges in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls were for first- or second-degree murder-a considerably smaller proportion than when the victim was non-Indigenous (80%). Instead, manslaughter charges were twice as common the court level when the victims were Indigenous women and girls (41%), compared to when they were not (20%).

In a general way, the distribution of first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter charges seen at the courts level mirrors that of charges laid or recommended by police (see Section 1): at both the police-reported and court charge level, more serious homicide charges were more common when the victim was a non-Indigenous woman or girl. As discussed in Section 1, police and Crown prosecution take various factors into account when deciding on the specific type of homicide charge to pursue.

Interestingly, the proportion of manslaughter charges increased between the police and courts stages of data, relative to first- and second-degree murder charges. This may be indicative of plea arrangements, where accused persons originally charged with second degree murder by police agree to plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter. Observers have pointed out that there may be a tendency among Indigenous accused persons in particular to accept guilty pleas, for reasons including mistrust in the justice process or to access supports that are contingent on doing so ( Bressan & Coady, 2017; Clark, 2016; Rudin, 2009). According to police-reported data, 86% of those accused of killing and Indigenous woman or girl between 2014 and 2021 were themselves Indigenous ( Table 3).

In terms of charges seen in court, the difference in the proportions of murder versus manslaughter charges was the most notable difference between charges seen in homicides of Indigenous women and girls and those involving non-Indigenous victims. Other marked differences included aggravated physical assault (present in 6% of cases linked to Indigenous victims and 2% of cases linked to non-Indigenous victims), breach of probation (8% and 2%) and failure to comply with an order (8% and 5%). Conversely, weapon possession charges were more common when the homicide victim was a non-Indigenous woman or girl (9%) than when she was Indigenous (4%).

Guilty findings most common when charge is manslaughter

Looking at the totality of all charges laid in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls, the proportion of charges for which a guilty finding was pronounced was similar when the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl and when she was not. Under a third (31%) of all charges (homicide and other charges) in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls resulted in a guilty finding for the accused, along with 29% of cases where the victim was non-Indigenous ( Table 7).

Guilty findings specific to the homicide charges associated with the cases were also similar. Of the 221 homicide charges present in the cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls, 45% returned a guilty finding. Acquittals were rare: about one in one hundred (1.6%) homicide charges in cases where the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl resulted in an acquittal; in cases where the victim was non-Indigenous, the proportion was 0.4%. Instead, stays, and withdrawals and dismissals, were much more common, accounting for 49% of homicide charges linked to cases involving the homicides of Indigenous women and girls and 45% of charges where the victim was non-Indigenous.

Notably, the similarity in rates of guilty findings between homicide charges linked to Indigenous woman and girl victims and those that did not involve an Indigenous victim rests on manslaughter charges. Manslaughter charges-which were considerably more common when the victim was Indigenous-had the highest rate of guilty findings of any criminal charge, in cases where the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl (66%) and when she was not (72%). Guilty rates for manslaughter were somewhat lower among Indigenous victims, as they were for first- and second-degree murder (30% versus 36%); however, the larger proportion of manslaughter charges-and their high rates of guilty findings-found in cases linked to Indigenous victims inflated the overall rate of guilty findings among charges linked to Indigenous victims, making it comparable to that of non-Indigenous victims.

Pre-trial negotiations may explain some of the difference in rates of guilty findings. Guilty pleas are counted as convictions in the courts data; thus, charges with a higher proportion of guilty pleas may also have a higher rate of conviction. In this way, the high rate of guilty findings for manslaughter charges may reflect pre-trial negotiations in which an accused pleads guilty to manslaughter instead of standing trial for first- or second-degree murder. As discussed, manslaughter charges are more common among Indigenous accused persons and when linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls.

Section 3: Court cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls

The 601 individual charges linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls that were completed in court between 2009 and 2021 are distributed among 193 individual court cases. Case-level analysis provides the opportunity to examine different aspects of how homicides of Indigenous women and girls are treated by the criminal courts. It is fundamentally different from charge-level analysis, presented in Section 2: while analysis at the charge level provides details about individual charges (of which there may be several in a single case), case-level analysis provides information about the totality of the case. For this reason, percentages seen at the charge level (for example, percentage of charges with a guilty finding) may be different than those seen at the case level. For more information on charges and cases, see Data sources and methodology.

Though all 193 cases included in this study were linked to a homicide of an Indigenous woman or girl, in some cases no charge of homicide was completed in the case. Specifically, 150 of the 193 cases that linked to homicide victims included a charge of homicide, while 43 did not. Different factors may account for the fact that there were fewer cases with a homicide charge completed in court than there were cases that linked to police-reported incidents of homicide, including prosecutorial or judicial discretion to downgrade charges, pre-trial proceedings or data quality issues associated with the linkage. Of note, the rate of retention of homicide charges in these cases was 78% when the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl and 88% when she was non-Indigenous. Unless otherwise noted, the remainder of the analysis in this study will include those 150 cases that included a homicide charge. These 150 cases that linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls involved the homicides of 169 individual victims.Note

Almost 7 in 10 cases linked to a homicide of an Indigenous woman or girl result in a guilty finding

Police collect a variety of information about victims of homicide, including demographics, the relationship between the victim and the offender, and the method used to cause the victim's death. Among Indigenous women and girls who were killed, 62% were First Nations, 7% were Inuit, 5% were Métis, and 23% were of an Indigenous identity group that was either unknown or unreported by police ( Table 8). The overall proportion of Indigenous victims for whom cases resulted in a finding of guilt was 65%.Note Note In comparison, in cases linked to homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls, 57% returned a guilty finding.

The rate of findings of guilt in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls were higher when the accused person was not Indigenous. In a subset of cases completed between 2014 and 2021,Note almost nine in ten (88%) cases with a non-Indigenous accused linked to a homicide of an Indigenous woman or girl resulted in a guilty finding ( Table 9). When the accused was an Indigenous person, 59% of cases returned a finding of guilt.

High rate of guilty findings in cases linked to Indigenous women killed by a spouses or strangers

Similar proportions of homicide cases involved women who were killed by a spouse or intimate partner, whether they were Indigenous (33%) or not (37%) ( Table 8). Interestingly, guilty findings in cases linked to Indigenous victims were returned considerably more often when the accused was a spouse (82%) then when they were a non-spousal intimate partner (57%); this was not the case when victim was non-Indigenous (63% versus 70%, respectively).

About one-quarter of cases linked to homicides of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous women and girls involved a family member other than a spouse as the accused (24%, respectively). Conviction rates were also similar (59% and 54%) in cases linked to familial homicides of Indigenous and non-Indigenous women and girls.

It was somewhat more common for an acquaintance to be accused in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls (35%) than in those linked to non-Indigenous victims (28%). Meanwhile, strangers were more common when the victim was non-Indigenous (12%, versus 8% when the victim was Indigenous). However, findings of guilt were fairly high in cases of stranger homicides of Indigenous women or girls (79%) and fairly low when victims were non-Indigenous (46%).

Prior convictions more common for accused in homicide cases linked to Indigenous women and girls

Guilty findings in cases linked to the homicides of Indigenous women and girls were somewhat less likely if the accused had previously been convicted of a crime (63%) than if they had not (70%) ( Table 10). The opposite was true when the victim was a non-Indigenous woman or girl (65% versus 50%). Almost three-quarters (72%) of those accused in cases linked to the homicides of Indigenous women and girls had a previous criminal conviction, according to police. In cases linked to non-Indigenous victims, this proportion was considerably lower (44%).

Interestingly, current involvement in illegal activity such as gangs or drug dealing appeared to have the opposite association. Those with criminal involvement were found guilty less often, regardless of if the case was linked to an Indigenous (57%) or non-Indigenous (44%) woman or girl, than those without criminal involvement (67% and 58%) ( Table 10). Accused persons linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls were also somewhat more likely to be described by police as having involvement in criminal activity (for example, gangs, drug dealing or human trafficking; 13%) compared to those linked to homicides of non-Indigenous victims (9.5%).

Accused in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls were more often using intoxicants

A notable difference was found between accused in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls and those linked to cases with non-Indigenous women and girls when it came to the use of alcohol, drugs, and other intoxicating substances (for example, inhalants). Seven in ten (69%) persons accused in cases where the homicide victim was an Indigenous woman or girl were reported by police as having consumed alcohol or another intoxicating substance at the time of the incident; among those accused in cases linked to non-Indigenous victims, the proportion was 41%.Note Intoxication can be taken into consideration by Crown counsel when deciding to accept a guilty plea to manslaughter by an accused initially charged with murder ( Wilson, 2010).

When an accused was reported to have used alcohol or another intoxicant, 68% of cases linked to the homicide of an Indigenous woman or girl resulted in a finding of guilt. This was very similar to the proportion of guilty findings in cases linked to non-Indigenous women and girls who were killed (65%).

Argument or quarrel more common as motive in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls

When it came to motives for homicide, notable differences were seen when it came to the two most common motives reported by police: argument or quarrel, and frustration, anger or despair ( Table 11). In cases linked to Indigenous women and girls who were killed, an argument or quarrel was the most common motive reported by police (49%); this motive type was substantially less common when the homicide involved a non-Indigenous victim (25%).Conversely, frustration, anger or despair-the second-most common motive in cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls (19%)-was more common when the victim was non-Indigenous (28%).

According to the Criminal Code, acts that would otherwise be considered murder can be reduced to manslaughter if the accused acted in the heat of passion cause by sudden provocation; provocation, in turn, exists if the victim's action amounted to an indictable offence punishable by five years or more of imprisonment and that would have caused an ordinary person to lose self-control (Criminal Code, s. 232 (1), s. 232 (2), s. 232 (3)(a)(b)). An argument that took the form of a physical altercation, in which the victim committed a fairly serious assault on the accused, could represent such a situation.

Average sentence for homicide is shorter when the victim is an Indigenous woman or girl

Where a charge of homicide processed in adult court returned a finding of guilt, the majority of cases linked to a homicide of an Indigenous woman or girl concluded with the accused being sentenced to custody (91%) ( Table 12). This was slightly lower than guilty cases involving a non-Indigenous victim, of which 94% produced a custodial sentence. It should be noted that this excludes cases for which sentencing information was not available: 18% of cases with guilty findings which linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls, and 30% of such cases where the victim was not Indigenous.

In cases with a guilty finding on a homicide charge where an accused was sentenced to custody and the length of the custody was known and greater than 0 days,Note the average length of custody when the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl was 11.4 years ( Table 13).Note This was three years shorter, on average, than when she was non-Indigenous (14.4 years). The median length of sentence, which attempts to take into account the "outlier" sentences that were either exceptionally long or exceptionally short, was 5.6 years in cases linked to Indigenous victims-somewhat shorter than the 7.9 years in cases linked to their non-Indigenous counterparts.

Cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls completed in average of 531 days

Homicide cases seen in court are often complex and can take many weeks from start to finish, and have a longer duration than other offences processed in criminal court ( Karam et al., 2020). Various factors contribute to the length of a court process, including complexity of the evidence and trial procedures, number of witnesses and justice system resources.

When it came to the 193 court cases completed between 2009 and 2021 that linked to a homicide of an Indigenous woman or girl, the average length of time that it took for a case to be completed was 531 days ( Table 13).Note The median duration was 433 days. Cases that resulted in a guilty finding took longer to complete (average 607 days, median 530 days) than not guilty cases (437 and 353), likely due to the additional time it takes for the sentencing portion to be completed (applicable to guilty cases only).

Compared to homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls, cases linked to Indigenous victims took slightly less time to complete. On average, this was a difference of 54 days, with a median difference of 56 days.

Observers have noted that lengthy court processes pose a burden for those with a vested interest in the proceedings, such as victims' family and community members ( National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019). This burden is felt particularly strongly by Indigenous community members, as trials often take place away from where they live and the monetary and time costs associated with travel to attend proceedings can be significant.

Summary

Despite ongoing efforts to identify and address the root causes of violence against Indigenous peoples, Indigenous women and girls in Canada continue to be overrepresented as victims of homicide. Between 2009 and 2021, 490 Indigenous women and girls were killed, at rate that was six times higher than among non-Indigenous women and girls (4.27 per 100,000 population, compared to 0.73).

The eventual outcome of a court case rests on several factors, beginning with the police investigation of the homicide. Whether a homicide is solved and how it is cleared by police determines whether it proceeds to the court stage. Between 2009 and 2021, most homicides of Indigenous women and girls were solved by police-that is, an accused person was identified in relation to the homicide. The proportion solved when the victim was non-Indigenous was similar.

Police also investigate and document various characteristics of each incident, including the relationship between the victim and the accused and possible motives, and these characteristics can influence what kind of charge is laid in the homicide. For most Indigenous women and girls who were killed, the accused was a family member or a current of former partner. Intoxication of the accused sometimes played a role in the homicide, and many were motivated by an argument or quarrel. In most homicides of Indigenous women and girls, the person accused was also Indigenous.

Differences in the types of charges associated with the homicides of Indigenous women and girls versus their non-Indigenous counterparts persist once a case proceeds to court. Again, first-degree murder charges were less common when the victim was an Indigenous woman or girl. Instead, many more homicides of Indigenous women and girls were processed in court as manslaughter, and manslaughter charges had the highest conviction rate of any charge. The frequency of manslaughter charges in homicides of Indigenous women and girls processed in court meant that the overall rate of guilty findings for all charges related to these homicides of Indigenous women and girls were similar to those that involved non-Indigenous victims.

Two-thirds of cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls between 2009 and 2021 returned a finding of guilt, a proportion that was higher than among non-Indigenous victims. Guilty findings were less common among Indigenous accused persons. When it came to sentencing, nine in ten cases linked to homicides of Indigenous women and girls with a finding of guilt resulted in a custody sentence, which was lower than in homicides of non-Indigenous victims.

On average, accused persons who were sentenced to custody in cases linked to the homicides of Indigenous women and girls were sentenced to just over eleven years in prison. When the victim was a non-Indigenous woman or girl, the sentence length was longer (just over fourteen years). The lengths of sentences given in homicides of Indigenous and non-Indigenous women and girls ultimately reflect the types of charges on which they are based. Cases linked to homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls are more likely to see convictions for the types of charges that carry the longest sentences, while the types of homicide charges that most often bring shorter sentences are more often seen in cases linked to Indigenous victims.

Detailed data tables
Table 1 Homicides, by gender and Indigenous identity, Canada, 2009 to 2021 Table 2 Homicides of women and girls, by Indigenous identity, clearance status, and selected victim characteristics, Canada, 2009 to 2021 Table 3 Indigenous identity of victims and persons accused of homicide, Canada, 2014 to 2021 Table 4 Homicides of women and girls, by Indigenous identity, clearance status, and selected incident characteristics, Canada, 2009 to 2021 Table 5 Logistic regression model: Odds of manslaughter versus murder charges being laid or recommended in relation to an incident of homicide, by select characteristics of the incident, the victim and the accused, 2014 to 2021 Table 6 Completed charges linked to police-reported homicides, by type of charge completed in adult criminal or youth court and Indigenous identity and gender of victim, Canada, 2009/10 to 2020/21 Table 7 Completed charges linked to police-reported homicides, by type of charge completed in adult criminal or youth court and Indigenous identity and gender of victim and final decision, Canada, 2009/10 to 2020/21 Table 8 Characteristics of victims associated with completed court cases involving a homicide charge, by Indigenous identity, final decision in the case, and selected victim characteristics, Canada, 2009/10 to 2020/21 Table 9 Decisions in completed court cases involving a completed homicide charge, by Indigenous identity of victim and accused and gender of victim, Canada, 2014/15 to 2020/21 Table 10 Characteristics of accused persons associated with completed court cases involving a homicide charge and final decision in the case, by Indigenous identity and gender of victim, Canada, 2009/10 to 2020/21 Table 11 Characteristics of incidents associated with completed court cases involving a homicide charge and final decision in the case, by Indigenous identity and gender of victim, Canada, 2009/10 to 2020/21 Table 12 Level of court and final decision in cases linked to police-reported homicides of Indigenous women and girls, Canada, 2009/10 to 2020/21
Data sources and methodology
Table 13 Length of time to complete a case linked to a police-reported homicide incident, by Indigenous identity and gender of victim and type of decision, Canada, 2009/10 to 2020/21
Homicide Survey

The Homicide Survey collects police-reported data on the characteristics of all homicide incidents, victims and accused persons in Canada. The Homicide Survey began collecting information on all murders in 1961 and was expanded in 1974 to include all incidents of manslaughter and infanticide. Although details on these incidents are not available prior to 1974, counts are available from the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR) and are included in the historical aggregate totals.

When a homicide becomes known to police, the investigating police service completes the survey questionnaires, which are then sent to Statistics Canada. There are cases where homicides become known to police months or years after they occurred. These incidents are counted in the year they become known to police (based on the report date). Information on persons accused of homicide is only available for solved incidents ( i.e., where at least one accused has been identified). Accused characteristics are updated as homicide cases are solved, and new information is submitted to the Homicide Survey. Information collected through the victim and incident questionnaires is also updated accordingly when a case is solved. For incidents involving more than one accused, only the relationship between the victim and the closest accused is recorded.

Indigenous identity is reported by police to the Homicide Survey and is determined through information found with the victim or accused person, such as Status cards, or through information supplied by victims' or accused persons' families, the accused persons themselves, community members, or other sources ( i.e., such as band records). Forensic evidence such as genetic testing results may also be an acceptable means of determining the Indigenous identity of victims.

For the purposes of the Homicide Survey, Indigenous identity includes those identified as First Nations persons (either Status or non-Status), Métis, Inuit, or an Indigenous identity where the Indigenous group is not known to police. Non-Indigenous identity refers to instances where the police have confirmed that a victim or accused person is not identified as an Indigenous person.

Indigenous identity reported as 'unknown' by police includes instances where police are unable to determine the Indigenous identity of the victim or accused person, where Indigenous identity is not collected by the police service, or where the accused person has refused to disclose their Indigenous identity to police.

The Homicide Survey collects information about homicides that occurred both on and off reserves.

The year 2019 marked the first cycle of collection of the Homicide Survey data for which information on gender identity was reported for victims and persons accused of homicide. Given the small counts of victims and accused persons reported or were identified as being non-binary, their data cannot be presented to protect privacy and confidentiality.

Integrated Criminal Court Survey

The Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) collects statistical information on adult and youth court cases involving Criminal Code and other federal statute offences. Data contained in this article represent both the adult criminal court portion as well as the youth court portion of the survey.

All youth courts in Canada have reported data to the youth component of the survey since the 1991/1992 fiscal year. As of 2005/2006, all provincial and territorial (adult criminal) courts in 10 provinces and 3 territories report to the survey. However, information from superior courts in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well as municipal courts in Quebec are not available for extraction from their electronic reporting systems and are therefore not reported to the survey. Superior court information for Prince Edward Island was also unavailable until 2018/2019.

The primary unit of analysis is a case. A case is defined as one or more charges against an accused person or company that were processed by the courts at the same time and received a final decision. A case combines all charges against the same person having one or more key overlapping dates (date of offence, date of initiation, date of first appearance, date of decision, or date of sentencing) into a single case.

A case that has more than one charge is represented by the charge with the "most serious offence" (MSO). The most serious offence is selected using the following rules. First, court decisions are considered and the charge with the "most serious decision" (MSD) is selected. Court decisions for each charge in a case are ranked from most to least serious as follows: 1) guilty, 2) guilty of a lesser offence, 3) acquitted, 4) stay of proceeding, 5) withdrawn, dismissed and discharged, 6) not criminally responsible, 7) other, and 8) transfer of court jurisdiction.

Second, in cases where two or more charges result in the same MSD ( e.g., guilty), Criminal Code sentences are considered. The charge with the most serious offence type is selected according to an offence seriousness scale, based on actual sentences handed down by courts in Canada. Each offence type is ranked by looking at (a) the proportion of guilty charges where custody was imposed and (b) the average (mean) length of custody for the specific type of offence. These values are multiplied together to arrive at the final seriousness ranking for each type of offence. If, after looking at the offence seriousness scale, two or more charges remain tied then information about the sentence type and duration of the sentence are considered ( e.g., custody and length of custody, then probation and length of probation, etc.).

Linkage file: Overview and limitations

Sections 2 and 3 in this Juristat article are based on a data file which linked police-reported data from the Homicide Survey and the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey with administrative data from the Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS).

Homicides reported by police between 2009 and 2021, where there was at least one accused person identified, and charges were laid or recommended by police, were considered in scope. While the focus of this analysis is on the homicides of Indigenous women and girls, all homicide incidents were included in the linkage to permit comparisons with homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls and, in some cases, homicides of men and boys.

The linkage was conducted in multiple steps using key information about the accused persons in the homicide incidents. First, information about the persons, such as province, sex, age or birthdate, and soundex (an algorithm that encodes names) were considered. Next, any matches were further linked based on the incident date, the date it was reported to police, the date charges were laid.

According to the Homicide Survey, there were 389 Indigenous women and girls who were victims of a homicide between 2009 and 2021 where police laid or recommended charges against at least one accused person in the incident. Of these, 48% were successfully linked to at least one charge in court. This linkage rate was comparable to homicides of non-Indigenous women and girls (44%) and homicides of men and boys (49%) over the same period.

Limitations

The linkage allows for a greater examination of outcomes depending on characteristics of the victim, accused, and incident as captured by the Homicide Survey. That said, the linkage rate of Homicide Survey data, while comparable across groups, is lower than is typically seen when linking police-reported data and courts data. As such, there are limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings, namely data coverage, which has a particularly notable impact on homicide data, and elapsed time between an incident and the completion of a court case.

In terms of data coverage, not all jurisdictions in Canada currently report data to the ICCS: information from superior courts in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well as municipal courts in Quebec are not reported, while superior court information for Prince Edward Island was also unavailable until 2018/2019. This absence of data from superior courts in these jurisdictions is particularly notable for this analysis, as more serious cases ( e.g., homicides) are processed in superior court.

In terms of time, some homicide incidents that did not successfully link to a completed charge may still be before the courts, particularly in recent years where the linkage rates were noticeably lower. Further, the most recent years included in the linkage were impacted by delays, closures, or modifications to criminal court processes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and related measures. As the ICCS data reflects only completed charges, those which are still active in the court system are not reflected in this linkage.

It is also possible that incidents do not successfully link due to missing or incomplete information in one or more of the files. Despite these limitations, however, the linked file affords the opportunity to examine quantitative and contextual factors, such as Indigenous identity, relationship, motive, and other characteristics that may be associated with court case characteristics and outcomes in greater detail than would be possible if using the ICCS data on its own.

Incidents may have involved multiple victims of different genders and different Indigenous identities. To avoid counting the same incident multiple times, incidents were classified according to the following hierarchy: if the incident involved a victim who was an Indigenous woman or girl, all victims and accused persons associated with the event are included in the category "homicides of Indigenous women and girls". For that reason, a small number of men and non-Indigenous women may also be included as victims in a homicide of an Indigenous woman or girl.

Next, if the incident involved a victim who was a non-Indigenous woman or girl, it was classified as a "homicide of non-Indigenous women and girls". Finally, all other homicides that did not involve any women or girls as victims were classified as "Homicide of men and boys". Victims whose gender was reported by police as unknown are excluded from the analysis, as are women and girls who were victims and whose Indigenous identity was reported as unknown (2% of all women and girls who were victims of homicide between 2009 and 2021).

References

Bressan, A. and Coady, K. (2017). Guilty pleas among Indigenous people in Canada. (Justice Research and Data). Department of Justice Canada.

Burczycka, M. (2017). Section 1: Profile of Canadian adults who experienced childhood maltreatment. In M. Burczycka and S. Conroy (Eds.), Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2015. ( Juristat). Statistics Canada.

Clark, S. (2016). Evaluation of the Gladue Court Old City Hall, Toronto. Aboriginal Legal Services.

Clark, S. (2019). Overrepresentation of Indigenous People in the Canadian Criminal Justice System: Causes and Responses. (Justice Research and Data). Department of Justice Canada.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women. (2015). Report of the Inquiry Concerning Canada of the Committee of the Elimination of Discrimination against Women under Article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. United Nations.

Criminal Code, R.S.C. (1985). c. C-46.

David, J.-D. & Jaffray, B. (2022). Homicide in Canada, 2021. ( Juristat). Statistics Canada.

Department of Justice Canada. (n.d.). Governmental, Legislative and Judicial Responses

Gevikoglu, J. (2013). Ipeelee/Ladue and the conundrum of Indigenous identity in sentencing. The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, 63.

Heidinger, L. (2022a). Profile of Canadians who experienced victimization during childhood, 2018. ( Juristat). Statistics Canada.

Heidinger, L. (2022b). Violent victimization and perceptions of safety: Experiences of First Nations, Métis and Inuit women in Canada. ( Juristat). Statistics Canada.

Karam, M., Lukassen, J., Miladinovic, Z., and Wallace, M. (2020). Measuring efficiency in the Canadian adult criminal court system: Criminal court workload and case processing indicators. ( Juristat). Statistics Canada.

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People National Action Plan. (2021).

National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. (2019). Reclaiming power and place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Native Women's Association of Canada. (2010). What Their Stories Tell Us: Research Findings from the Sisters in Spirit Initiative.

Perreault, S. (2022). Victimization of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit in Canada. ( Juristat). Statistics Canada.

Pfefferle, B. R. (2008). Gladue Sentencing: Uneasy Answers to the Hard Problem of Aboriginal Over-Incarceration. Manitoba Law Journal, 113-143.

Rudin, J. (2009). Addressing Aboriginal Overrepresentation Post-Gladue: A Realistic Assessment of How Social Change Occurs. Criminal Law Quarterly, 54, 447.

Saghbini, C., Bressan, A., and Paquin-Marseille, L. (2021). Indigenous People in Criminal Court in Canada: An Exploration Using the Relative Rate Index. (Research and Statistics Division). Department of Justice Canada.

Sutton, D. (2023). Gender-related homicide of women and girls in Canada. ( Juristat). Statistics Canada.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Wilson, L. C. (2010). Beatty, JF, and the law of manslaughter. Alberta Law Review, 47, (3), 651-674.

Notes

Note

Note

Note

Note

Note

Note

Note

Note

Note

Note

See Table 5 for a complete list of variables included in the model.

Note

Note

For instance, between 2009 and 2018, 58% of homicides of Indigenous women and girls where the incident was cleared by the laying or recommendation of charges were linked to a completed court case. The proportion varied by year, from a low of 44% (2011) to a high of 77% (2014). The proportions for homicides in 2019 (26%), 2020 (17%), and 2021 (0%) were much lower. Therefore, a higher linkage rate is to be expected as data are updated. Similar patterns were seen among non-Indigenous women and girls: between 2009 and 2018, 53% of homicides cleared by laying or recommendation of charges were linked to a completed court case, dropping considerably in 2019 (35%), 2020 (8%), and 2021 (0%). In this analysis, the median time to complete a case associated with the homicide of an Indigenous woman or girl was 433 days. In addition, the most recent years included in the linkage were impacted by delays, closures, or modifications to criminal court processes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and related measures. As the ICCS data reflects only completed charges, those which are still active in the court system are not reflected in this linkage.

Note

Note

Analyses which make use of data from the Integrated Criminal Court Survey are often based on the most serious decision (MSD) approach, in which the charge with the most serious decision ( e.g., a guilty finding) is taken to represent the case, even if a more serious charge had been present in the case. In the present analysis, the approach taken has been to look at all charges when analyzing offences ( i.e., homicides), so that characteristics such as types of charges associated with homicides can be looked at (even if they were not the most serious charge in the case).

Note

Note

Note

It should be noted that for a case to be noted as having a finding of guilt, only one of its charges-and not necessarily the homicide charge-need result in a finding of guilt. For more information, see Data sources and methodology. The proportion of cases with a guilty finding is considerably higher than the proportion of individual charges with a guilty finding. This is largely due to the analytical approach, where cases with multiple charges are represented by a single charge, the most serious decision (MSD). The MSD takes into account the severity of the offence, but also the final decision, with findings of guilt taking precedence over other types of decision.

Note

Note

See footnote 4.

Note

Note

Note

Note

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Court outcomes in homicides of Indigenous women and girls, 2009 to 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Juristat article reviews court outcomes of cases linked to the homicides of First Nations, Métis and Inuit (Indigenous) women and girls. Using a linked data file containing records from the Homicide and Integrated Criminal Court Survey, the article examines how incidents of homicide move from t…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Over-representation of Indigenous persons in adult provincial custody, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Juristat article presents data and information on the extent of Indigenous over-representation in correctional systems across Canada in 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, using three new corrections indicators recently developed: Incarceration Rates for Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons, the Over-Representation Index, and the Custodial Involvement Rate. In addition, trends in the use of bail and remand will be explored, along with possible impacts on over-representation. The findings are presented from five provincial correctional service programs reporting to the Canadian Correctional Services Survey (CCSS): Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overrepresentation: The Nature and Extent of the Problem

Failures of the criminal justice system for Indigenous people are manifested in many ways, perhaps most notably in the extreme overrepresentation of Indigenous individuals as incarcerated offenders. This can be demonstrated in two ways: by examining the Indigenous inmate population as a proportion of the total inmate population; and by looking at the comparative rates of Indigenous incarceration and changes in those rates.

The 2017-2018 Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) pointed to increasing numbers of incarcerated Indigenous people. Indigenous inmates in federal institutions rose from 20 percent of the total inmate population in 2008-2009 to 28 percent in 2017-2018, while representing only 4.1 percent of the overall Canadian population. Similarly, the percentage of federally incarcerated Indigenous women rose from 32 percent of the female inmate population to 40 percent. While proportions of Indigenous incarceration have risen substantially, the overall inmate population (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) has risen only slightly. The Correctional Investigator stated:

In the ten-year period between March 2009 and March 2018, the Indigenous inmate population increased by 42.8% compared to a less than 1% overall growth [in the total adult custodial population] during the same period. As of March 31, 2018, Indigenous inmates represented 28% of the total federal in-custody population while comprising just 4.3% of the Canadian population. The situation continues to worsen for Indigenous women. Over the last ten years, the number of Indigenous federally sentenced women increased by 60%, growing from 168 in March 2009 to 270 in March 2018. At the end of the reporting period, 40% of incarcerated women in Canada were of Indigenous ancestry. These numbers are distressing. (OCI, 2018: 61)

The Department of Justice Canada (2018c) has examined trends in adult federal custody populations based on data points for the last three census years (2006, 2011, and 2016). The Department's report draws a number of conclusions, including the following that relate directly to adult Indigenous individuals admitted to federal correctional institutions:

Although the incarceration rates for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous men have decreased over the past decade, the rate of Indigenous male offenders remains eight times higher than that of non-Indigenous men. The number of Indigenous male offenders continues to increase while the number of non-Indigenous male offenders has decreased slightly.

The incarceration rates and total numbers for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous women have increased over the past decade; the incarceration rate of Indigenous women continues to be much higher (12.5 times) than that of non-Indigenous women. (Department of Justice Canada, 2018c)

Statistics Canada has provided data that expand on the overrepresentation issue by addressing provincial and territorial corrections, as well as federal corrections. In 2016-2017, Indigenous adults accounted for 28 percent of admissions to provincial and territorial correctional services and 27 percent of admissions to federal correctional services (Statistics Canada, 2018a). Yet they represented only 4.1 percent of the total Canadian population ( ibid.). According to Statistics Canada:

An admission is counted each time an individual begins any type of custody or community supervision program. Aboriginal adults represented 4.1% of the Canadian adult population in 2016/2017, while accounting for 28% of admissions to provincial/territorial correctional services and 27% of admissions for federal correctional services. In comparison, in 2006/2007, Aboriginal adults accounted for 21% of admissions to provincial and territorial correctional services (excluding Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories) and 19% to federal correctional services. (Statistics Canada, 2018a)

Overall adult admissions to federal institutions (Indigenous and non-Indigenous adults combined) grew less than one percent in 2018. However, Statistics Canada data indicate admissions of Indigenous adults to federal correctional services increased significantly between 2006-2007 and 2016-2017 to 27 percent. The proportion of Indigenous adult admissions to provincial and territorial institutions was slightly higher at 28 percent in 2016-2017 ( ibid.).
The numbers for Indigenous youth involved in provincial and territorial correctional services are even more serious:

Aboriginal youth accounted for 46% of admissions to correctional services in the 10 reporting jurisdictions in 2016/2017, while representing 8% of the general youth population in those same jurisdictions. Aboriginal youth are overrepresented in both custody and community supervision, accounting for 50% of custody admissions and 42% of community supervision admissions. Aboriginal females accounted for a greater proportion of custody admissions among youth relative to their male counterparts. Aboriginal female youth accounted for 60% of female admissions, while Aboriginal male youth made up 47% of male youth admissions. (Statistics Canada, 2018a)

A telling way to see the trend to higher Indigenous incarceration numbers is to compare percentages of adult Indigenous admissions to provincial and territorial correctional services by type of supervision between 2012-2013 and 2016-17. These numbers represent the percentage of Indigenous inmates as a proportion of the total inmate population. It is also important to remember that the Indigenous population as a percentage of the overall Canadian population was only 4.1 percent in 2016-2017 (Statistics Canada, 2018a).

Between 2013-2014 and 2016-2017, total Indigenous admissions to custody rose from 25 percent of total admissions to 30 percent. Sentenced admissions rose from 26 percent to 30 percent. Remands rose from 23 percent to 29 percent. And other custodial statuses rose from 32 percent to 33 percent. (Statistics Canada 2016a; Statistics Canada, 2017a)

A number of significant points arise from these numbers. First, Indigenous admissions to custody are substantially higher than non-Indigenous admissions in all categories. Second, admission percentages for Indigenous offenders increased in all categories between 2012-2013 and 2016-2017. This means, of course, that the admission percentages for non-Indigenous offenders decreased in all categories. Third, when one considers the relative overall Indigenous population size, the differences are striking. For example, while representing 4.1 percent of the overall Canadian population, Indigenous adults accounted for almost 30 percent of total custodial admissions in 2016-2017 (Statistics Canada 2016a; Statistics Canada, 2017a).

It is worth noting that custodial admissions of adult Indigenous offenders vary by province and territory, as do the proportions of Indigenous inmates compared to the relative proportions of Indigenous people in the general population. Ontario, the western provinces, and the territories have significantly higher proportions of Indigenous incarceration relative to the Indigenous percentage of the population than do Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. For example, in 2011-2012, Saskatchewan had a relatively high proportion of Indigenous people in its total adult population at 12 percent, but 78 percent of the total adult incarcerated population were Indigenous. In Nova Scotia, on the other hand, Indigenous adults were 3 percent of the provincial adult population and 11 percent of the incarcerated adult population (Statistics Canada, 2014). Thus, the relative incarceration numbers are lower compared to overall population rates in Nova Scotia than in Saskatchewan. These relative differences apply generally when comparing jurisdictions across the country.

In 2016-2017, Indigenous youth (12 to 17 years) accounted for 8 percent of all youth in the provinces and territories (Department of Justice Canada 2018a). However, in 2016-2017 they accounted for a much higher proportion of young people admitted to the corrections system: 46 percent ( ibid.). The overrepresentation of Indigenous youth was even more disproportionate among girls in 2016-2017. Indigenous female youth accounted for 60 percent of all female youth admitted to provincial and territorial corrections systems, compared to 47 percent for Indigenous male youth (Statistics Canada, 2018a).

Finally, we should look at the victimization of Indigenous people in Canada. Statistics Canada has provided data relating to this problem for the year 2014 (Statistics Canada, 2016c: 3):

In 2014, a higher proportion of Aboriginal people than non-Aboriginal people in Canada reported being victimized in the previous 12 months. Overall, 28% of Aboriginal people living in the provinces and territories compared with 18% of non-Aboriginal people reported being the victim of one of the eight types of offences measured by the General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization.

In 2014, the overall rate of violent victimization among Aboriginal people was more than double that of non-Aboriginal people (163 incidents per 1,000 people versus 74 incidents per 1,000 people). Regardless of the type of violent offence, rates of victimization were almost always higher for Aboriginal people than for non-Aboriginal people.

While victimization rates are relatively high for Indigenous people, it is important to recognize that this does not mean Indigenous people are inherently more likely to commit crimes, including violent crimes, than non-Indigenous people. Nor are Indigenous people inherently more likely to be victimized than non-Indigenous people. As the Statistics Canada analysis below indicates, being Indigenous in itself is not the most significant risk factor in becoming a victim. Rather, other social and economic factors - both historical and current - have greater statistical weight in potential victimization.

When controlling for various risk factors, Aboriginal identity by itself did not remain associated with increasing one's overall risk of violent victimization. Rather, the higher rates of victimization observed among Aboriginal people appeared to be related to the increased presence of other risk factors among this group-such as experiencing childhood maltreatment, perceiving social disorder in one's neighbourhood, having been homeless, using drugs, or having fair or poor mental health. (Statistics Canada, 2016c)

While this is true in statistical terms, it must be recognized that being Indigenous is often a strong factor in victimization. We know this from the many disturbing examples of violence, including murder, experienced by Indigenous women and young people. The cases addressed by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (2019), and the inquiry into the deaths of seven Indigenous high school students in Thunder Bay from 2000 to 2011 (Talaga, 2017) demonstrate this point. The problem is further complicated by the fact that colonialism, socio-economic marginalization, and systemic discrimination always play a role in these terrible cases.

Numerous Commissions of Inquiry and courts, including RCAP (1996), the TRC (2015), and the Supreme Court of Canada (various rulings), have confirmed that a broad range of factors have contributed to the overrepresentation of Indigenous people as offenders and victims. These factors are discussed in the following section.

Footnotes

Footnote 5

Slight discrepancies appear in different official publications with respect to the Indigenous percentage of the overall Canadian population; for example, while the OCI estimated the percentage of Indigenous people to be 4.3 percent of the total Canadian population, Statistics Canada concluded the proportion to be 4.1 percent.
Absolutely accurate Indigenous population counts are difficult to achieve and may vary according to timing and the enumeration techniques employed. Regardless, the variances are small enough such that they do not affect the message in the overall incarceration numbers as expressed here. See Footnote 11.

Footnote 6

Footnote 7

Footnote 8

Footnote 9

Footnote 10

Footnote 11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overrepresentation: The Nature and Extent of the Problem - Research and Statistics Division - Overrepresentation of Indigenous People in the Canadian Criminal Justice System: Causes and Responses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Department of Justice Canada’s Internet site

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Colleges and Institutes Canada | By the Numbers: Indigenous Post-Secondary Education in Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indigenous postsecondary education in Canada is a dynamic landscape marked by resilience, progress, and ongoing challenges. The latest data from Statistics…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Nations youth: Experiences and outcomes in secondary and postsecondary learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This fact sheet uses 2016 data to examine the education outcomes of First Nations youth aged 19 to 30 in secondary and postsecondary learning, alongside characteristics that may affect their educational experience. This study is guided by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action, which recognize the importance of equitable education in the success of Indigenous peoples. Comparisons between First Nations and non-Indigenous youth are presented in response to the TRC’s 55th Call to Action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2024, the majority of First Nations people living off reserve (86%), Métis (70%) and Inuit (82%) reported that it was very or somewhat important to have health care services that support Indigenous traditional medicines, healing and wellness practices.

Released today, new data from the Survey Series on First Nations People, Métis and Inuit sheds light on health care access and experiences among Indigenous people aged 15 and older. The purpose of this survey series is to improve the visibility of First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit in national statistics and to fill key data gaps with timely and culturally relevant data.

Over one-quarter of Indigenous people wait two weeks or more for non-urgent care with a health care provider

Primary health care providers serve a crucial role in health maintenance and are linked to better health outcomes. In 2024, 70% of Métis, 66% of First Nations people living off reserve, and 52% of Inuit consulted a health care provider for a non-urgent primary health care need (such as check-ups and prescription refills) in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Timely access to a primary health care provider is important, yet wait times have been increasing in Canada and they tend to be longer in more remote areas among Indigenous people. Among those who had consulted a primary health care provider in the 12 months prior to the survey, most reported wait times that ranged from two days to less than two weeks. Inuit were most likely to report waiting one month or more to access a primary health care provider (18%, compared with 14% for First Nations people living off reserve and 11% of Métis) (Chart 1).

When asked about their level of satisfaction with wait times, about half of First Nations people living off reserve (50%), Métis (52%) and Inuit (57%) reported being satisfied or very satisfied.

Over one-quarter of Indigenous people have unmet health care needs

Indigenous people often face barriers to health care that contribute to health disparities, including navigating complex health care policies and funding, and sometimes even having to travel outside their communities to access services.

Unmet health care needs in the 12 months prior to the survey were reported by 32% of First Nations people living off reserve, 30% of Métis, and 29% of Inuit. A higher percentage of off-reserve First Nations women than men reported unmet health care needs in the 12 months prior to the survey (Table 1).

When asked why their health care needs were unmet, commonly reported reasons among First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit were difficulty getting a referral to a specialist and not being given the correct treatment or prescription. Among First Nations people living off reserve and Inuit, another commonly reported reason was health care services not being in their area/being too far away (Table 2).

Among Indigenous people who need mental health care and seek such care, about three-quarters report needs that are partially met or unmet

Mental health disparities among Indigenous people have been widely reported. These disparities are rooted in historical factors such as colonial, assimilationist policies, that have had adverse direct and intergenerational impacts, as well as contemporary factors such as access barriers to mental health services.

Almost half (47%) of First Nations people living off reserve, 43% of Métis and 35% of Inuit reported needing mental health care in the 12 months prior to the survey. More First Nations, Métis, and Inuit women than men reported that they needed mental health care. The need for mental health care trended higher among younger than older First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit with significant differences found between the oldest and youngest age groups (Table 3).

Among those who needed mental health care and sought such care, 28% of First Nations people living off reserve, 23% of Métis and 22% of Inuit reported that their needs were fully met, while nearly three-quarters reported partially met or unmet mental health care needs.

Inuit report travelling significant distances from their community to access health care

For some Indigenous people, extensive travel is necessary to access health care, and this can result in financial burdens, emotional stress, anxiety, and feelings of isolation. Roughly one in five First Nations people living off reserve (18%), 16% of Metis and 40% of Inuit travelled outside their community to access health care services in the 12 months prior to the survey.

While most First Nations people living off reserve and Métis who travelled for health care in the 12 months prior to the survey reported travelling less than 500 km (55% and 63%, respectively), a different scenario was seen among Inuit, just over half of whom reported travelling 1,500 km or more (Table 4).

Roughly one in five Indigenous people report experiencing unfair treatment, racism or discrimination from a health care professional

Racism, discrimination, and marginalization within the health care system are documented barriers to health care for Indigenous people. About 24% of First Nations people living off reserve, 23% of Inuit and 18% of Métis reported that they experienced some form of unfair treatment, racism, or discrimination from a health care professional in the 12 months prior to the survey. First Nations women living off reserve and Métis women were nearly twice as likely to report this compared to men (Chart 2).

Among First Nations people living off reserve and Inuit who had experienced unfair treatment, racism or discrimination from a health care professional, the most reported setting was the hospital emergency room (50% for First Nations people living off reserve and 34% for Inuit), with 36% of Métis also reporting similar experiences in this setting. Among Métis, the most reported setting was the doctor's office (46%) (Table 5).

Most Indigenous people report that having health care services that support Indigenous traditional medicines, healing and wellness practices are very or somewhat important

In the Indigenous context, the integration of culturally appropriate and safe care-defined as care that reflects the values, traditions, and social norms of a patient's culture and where patients feel respected, safe and valued-is important. In addition, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called on the Canadian health care system to recognize and integrate traditional knowledge, therapies and healing practices into the treatment approach for Indigenous people.

In 2024, health care services that support Indigenous traditional medicines, healing and wellness practices in the Canadian health care system were very or somewhat important to First Nations people living off reserve (86%), Inuit (82%) and Métis (70%) (Chart 3).

However, most Indigenous people experiencing unfair treatment, racism or discrimination felt that their concerns and values were not taken into consideration in their interactions with health care professionals. More specifically, among those who experienced unfair treatment, racism or discrimination in the 12 months preceding the survey, 67% of First Nations people living off reserve, 65% of Métis and 58% of Inuit reported that their health concerns were minimized or dismissed (Table 6).

A further 21% of First Nations people living off reserve, 12% of Métis and 9% of Inuit indicated that their cultural protocols were not respected (e.g., not allowed to smudge or use traditional medicines).

Of those who stated that culturally appropriate services were important, 68% of First Nations people living off reserve, 67% of Inuit and 61% of Métis reported such services would make them feel respected for their culture, beliefs and identity. Roughly half of First Nations people living off reserve (49%) and Inuit (50%) reported that such services would make them more likely to seek health care. About half of Inuit (48%), 41% of First Nations people living off reserve and 32% of Métis reported that these services would make them feel safer discussing sensitive or traumatic experiences (Table 7).

Did you know we have a mobile app?

Download our mobile app and get timely access to data at your fingertips! The StatsCAN app is available for free on the App Store and on Google Play.

Contact information

For more information, or to enquire about the concepts, methods or data quality of this release, contact us (toll-free 1-800-263-1136; 514-283-8300; infostats@statcan.gc.ca) or Media Relations ( statcan.mediahotline-ligneinfomedias.statcan@statcan.gc.ca).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Daily — Health care access and experiences among Indigenous people, 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2024, the majority of First Nations people living off reserve (86%), Métis (70%) and Inuit (82%) reported that it was very or somewhat important to have health care services that support Indigenous traditional medicines, healing and wellness practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Access to primary health care services for Indigenous peoples: A framework synthesis - International Journal for Equity in Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background Indigenous peoples often find it difficult to access appropriate mainstream primary health care services. Securing access to primary health care services requires more than just services that are situated within easy reach. Ensuring the accessibility of health care for Indigenous peoples who are often faced with a vast array of additional barriers including experiences of discrimination and racism, can be complex. This framework synthesis aimed to identify issues that hindered Indigenous peoples from accessing primary health care and then explore how, if at all, these were addressed by Indigenous health care services. Methods To be included in this framework synthesis papers must have presented findings focused on access to (factors relating to Indigenous peoples, their families and their communities) or accessibility of Indigenous primary health care services. Findings were imported into NVivo and a framework analysis undertaken whereby findings were coded to and then thematically analysed using Levesque and colleague’s accessibility framework. Results Issues relating to the cultural and social determinants of health such as unemployment and low levels of education influenced whether Indigenous patients, their families and communities were able to access health care. Indigenous health care services addressed these issues in a number of ways including the provision of transport to and from appointments, a reduction in health care costs for people on low incomes and close consultation with, if not the direct involvement of, community members in identifying and then addressing health care needs. Conclusions Indigenous health care services appear to be best placed to overcome both the social and cultural determinants of health which hamper Indigenous peoples from accessing health care. Findings of this synthesis also suggest that Levesque and colleague’s accessibility framework should be broadened to include factors related to the health care system such as funding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education is considered a human right in Canada. Yet, while Canada has one of the world's highest levels of educational attainment, the graduation rate for Indigenous students remains far lower than that of non-Indigenous students. How is that possible? The answer lies in the history of Canada.

When the British North America Act, now known as the Constitution Act, 1867 was issued, it gave exclusive jurisdiction over "Indians and lands reserved for Indians" to the federal government. Around the same time, the federal government signed Treaties 1 through 11, thereby assuming responsibility for the education of Indians in those treaty lands.

Eight years after the Constitution Act was issued, regulations impacting Indians were consolidated into the Indian Act, 1876. Here's an insightful quote on how the federal government perceived its responsibility:

Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State . . . clearly our wisdom and our duty, through education and every other means, to prepare him for a higher civilization by encouraging him to assume the privileges and responsibility of full citizenship. [1]

In 1886, the federal government introduced the residential school system. Over its history (the last one closed in 1997) 150,000 children were removed from their families and communities.

When the school is on the reserve, the child lives with its parents, who are savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly impressed upon myself, as head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.

Sir John A. Macdonald, 1879

Two boys cutting hay with teams of horses, St. Michael's Indian Residential School, Duck Lake, Saskatchewan, unknown date. Photo: Canada. Dept. of Interior / Library and Archives Canada / PA-044563

The schools aimed to assimilate Indigenous children into mainstream society through education and religious teachings. The children were taught to kneel and pray in the school's religious denomination. They were taught that their former lives were invalid ( not Christian) and that their spirituality and beliefs were pagan and primitive. However, beyond that, they received little formal education. The children spent fewer hours in the classroom than they did learning trades and domestic chores. They were taught to cook, clean and work in the fields to produce food and, sometimes, revenue for the schools.

Those who survived (over 4,000 deaths documented) the physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse returned to their communities traumatized, and the connection with their family, community, language, spirituality and culture broken. They did not fit in at home or in mainstream society.

The lack of role models and mentors, insufficient funds for the schools, inadequate teachers, and unsuitable curricula taught in a foreign language all contributed to dismal success rates. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has heard many examples of students who attended residential school for eight or more years but left with nothing more than Grade Three achievement and sometimes without even the ability to read. According to Indian Affairs annual reports, in the 1950s, only half of each year's enrolment made it to Grade Six. [2]

Deterrents to education

Here are some friction points contributing to Indigenous students' lower educational attainment rates. There is a direct link to residential schools and the Indian Act behind each one.

Intergenerational trauma

Parents who distrust the education system

Parents with low educational attainment unable to help their children with homework

Lower income due to lower education means some children go to school hungry

Crowded housing means adequate rest is compromised

Underfunded on-reserve schools (disrepair, lacking libraries, gyms, and computer labs)

Challenges in recruiting, retaining and housing teachers for on-reserve schools

Challenges in recruiting and retaining tutors

Lack of funds for special education instructors, psychologists, social workers and psychiatrists

Photo: Unsplash

Transportation to off-reserve schools: if a child misses the bus to or from school, parents may or may not have access to a vehicle to take them or pick them up

Racism in off-reserve schools

Reluctance to send children away for schooling

Lack of connectivity for many remote reserves hampers online learning

Funding gaps

On-reserve schools are funded by the federal government, while the provincial governments fund other schools. Underfunding of on-reserve schools is historical and ongoing.

In 1996, the federal government capped the national funding formula at 2% per year for all First Nation programs and services. The cap remained in place until 2015, despite the rapid growth of the Indigenous population. In 2016, it was estimated that schools on reserves receive at least 30% less funding than other schools. In 2015, the 94 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission included the following:

8. We call upon the federal government to eliminate the discrepancy in federal education funding for First Nations children being educated on reserves and those First Nations children being educated off reserves.

9. We call upon the federal government to prepare and publish annual reports comparing funding for the education of First Nations children on and off reserves, as well as the educational and income attainments of Aboriginal peoples in Canada compared with non-Aboriginal people.

In the spring of 2018, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada published a report on the Socio-economic Gaps on First Nations Reserves-Indigenous Services Canada. The report was quite damning:

Collecting, using, and sharing First Nations' education data
Overall message
5.38 Overall, we found that education results for First Nations students have not improved relative to those of other Canadians. We found that despite commitments the Department made 18 years ago, Indigenous Services Canada did not collect relevant data or adequately use data to improve education programs and inform funding decisions. It also did not assess the relevant data it collected for accuracy and completeness. Nor did the Department provide access to or regularly share its education information or the results of data analysis with First Nations. In addition, the Department was still unable to report how federal funding for on-reserve education compared with the funding levels for other education
systems across Canada.

5.39 These findings matter because the Department and First Nations communities that deliver education need complete and accurate data to make evidence-based decisions and, ultimately, to improve education results and socio-economic well-being. [3]

The funding allowances changed in 2019, and Indigenous Services Canada now provides guaranteed base funding per student, similar to the base funding provinces pay. An additional $1500 per student funds language and culture education. Schools on reserve will also receive additional funding based on remoteness, language, poverty rates, and school size. [4]

Education & employment

Over 150 years of inferior education have had a noticeable and devastating impact on the socioeconomic outcomes of Indigenous people. Poor education leads to chronic unemployment, which can lead to poverty, poor housing, substance abuse, family violence and ill health.

[The National Indigenous Economic Development Strategy 2022 estimates that] if access to education and training for Indigenous Peoples became equitable to non-Indigenous Peoples, the result would be an additional $8.5 billion in income earned annually by the Indigenous population. Further, the report states that closing the productivity gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians would lead to an increase of $27.7 billion to Canada's gross domestic product (GDP) each year. [5]

Reclaiming education

Education Jurisdiction Agreements are education agreements between the Government of Canada and Nations seeking to control the education of the Nation's children. Agreements can include governance processes, education standards, graduation requirements, certification of teachers and schools, and consultation and decision-making requirements.

Nations that successfully negotiate Education Jurisdiction Agreements step away from Sections 114 to 122 of the federal Indian Act. Taking control of education is essential on the long journey back to self-governance.

Consistent, equitable funding for the education of all Indigenous students is in the best interests of all Canadians.

[1] Canada, Department of the Interior, Annual Report for the Year Ended 30th June 1876, Sessional Papers, 1877, vol. 7, no.II, Xiv
[2] The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Volume 5. P
[3] Office of the Auditor General of Canada, REPORT 5 Socio-economic Gaps on First Nations Reserves-Indigenous Services Canada
[4] Indigenous Services Canada (2019a)
[5] National Indigenous Economic Development Strategy 2022
Featured photo: Unsplash

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lower Education - #2 of 8 Key Issues for Indigenous Peoples in Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Canada has one of the highest levels of educational attainment, yet the graduation rate for Indigenous students remains far lower than their peers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Vancouver Island Crisis Society - Vancouver Island Crisis Society - Helping People Find Their Way

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Suicide: Statistics for First Nations - Vancouver Island Crisis Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Suicide Statistics for Indigenous People Statistics are excerpted from Suicide among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit (2011-2016): Findings from the 2011 Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC), and are based on a National Household Survey of Aboriginal Peoples. First Nations People There were an estimated 851,280 First Nations people in 2011. An estimated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Higher Rates of Unemployment - #5 of 8 Key Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Historically, Indigenous people have experienced higher unemployment rates than other Canadians. Why? This blog post answers that question.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2017, the unemployment rate for Indigenous people was a little over 11%. There’s a clear connection between education and jobs. In the past, Indigenous peoples have had higher unemployment rates than other Canadians because they were given poorer education. Some reasons why many Indigenous people don’t have jobs include stereotypes, racism, not having a driver’s license, cultural differences, and low self-esteem.

# data[].attributes.body
Indigenous people have the hardest time with housing in Canada. About 18% of Indigenous households are dealing with serious housing problems, meaning their homes don’t meet basic standards. In 2021, more than one in six Indigenous people lived in overcrowded homes that weren’t big enough for the number of people living there. That’s about 17% of them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Compendium Report to the Department's 2023 Annual Report to Parliament.

Table of contents

List of tables

Table 1: Comparison of the gap in median income 2015 to 2020 (adjusted), Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 2: Comparison of the gap in median individual income, 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 3: Number of people living in a low-income situation, 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 4: Comparison of the gap in the percentage living in a low-income situation 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 5: Comparison of the gap in percentage living in a low-income situation 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 6: Number of individuals employed, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 7: Comparison of the gap in employment rate 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 8: Comparison of the gap in employment rate 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 9: Comparison of median employment income (adjusted) 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 10: Comparison of median employment income 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 11: Number of people with at least a high school credential, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 12: Comparison of the percentage of people with at least a high school credential 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 13: Comparison of the gap in the percentage of pepole with at least a high school credential 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 14: Number of people with a university degree, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 15: Comparison of the gap in the percentage of people with a university degree 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 16: Comparison of the percentage with a university degree 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 17: Number of households residing in a dwelling classified as crowded, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 18: Comparison of the percentage of dwellings classified as crowded 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 19: Number of households residing in dwellings in need of major repair, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 20: Comparison of the percentage of dwellings in need of major repair 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 21: Number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children comprising the total population of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2016 to 2021, Canada

Table 22: Comparison of the percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 23: Number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people capable of holding a conversation in an Indigenous language, 2016 to 2021, Canada

Table 24: Number of custody admissions of individuals with Indigenous and non-Indigenous identity, 2016 to 2017 to 2020 to 2021, Canada

Table 25: Comparison of the employment rate, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, urban areas, Canada

Table 26: Summary of the size and direction of the change in gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations from 2016 to 2021 for all domains, Canada

List of figures

Figure 1: Distribution and number of Indigenous people in Canada by province and territory, 2021

Figure 2: Composition of the Indigenous population in Canada by province and territory, 2021

Figure 3: Median individual income, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 4: Median individual income 2005 to 2020 (adjusted), Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 5: Median individual income, 2020, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 6: Median individual income, 2020, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 7: Median individual income, 2020, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by Inuit region

Figure 8: Median individual income, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 9: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 10: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2005 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 11: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 12: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 13: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, by Inuit region

Figure 14: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, by gender, Canada

Figure 15: Employment rate, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 16: Employment rate, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 17: Employment rate, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 18: Employment rate, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 19: Employment rate, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by Inuit region

Figure 20: Employment rate, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 21: Median employment income, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 22: Median employment income, 2005 to 2020 (adjusted), Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 23: Median employment income, 2020, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 24: Median employment income, 2020, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 25: Median employment income, 2020, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by Inuit region

Figure 26: Median employment income, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 27: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 28: Gap in high school completion (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35+ and 25 to 64, 2021, Canada

Figure 29: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 30: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 31: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 32: Percentage with at least a high school credential, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by Inuit region

Figure 33: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 34: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 35: Gap in university completion (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 34 and 25 to 64, 2021, Canada

Figure 36: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 37: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 38: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 39: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 40: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 41: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 42: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 43: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 44: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 45: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 46: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 47: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 48: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 49: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 50: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, by Inuit region

Figure 51: Percentage of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children comprising the total population of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, Canada

Figure 52: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 53: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2011 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 54: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 55: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 56: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, Canada

Figure 57: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2001 to 2021, Canada

Figure 58: Percentage of First Nations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Figure 59: Percentage of Métis with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Figure 60: Percentage of Inuit with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Figure 61: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by gender, Canada

Figure 62: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, aged 0 to 19 and aged 20+, Canada

Figure 63: Custody admissions associated with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in 2021 to 2022 as a percentage of their respective 2021 Census populations, Canada

Figure 64: Percentage of custody admissions of individuals with Indigenous and non-Indigenous identity, 2016 to 2017 to 2020 to 2021, Canada

Figure 65: Comparison of total and urban employment rates, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Executive summary

Keywords: Indigenous Peoples, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, income, employment, family, culture, Indigenous languages, housing, foster care, justice, incarceration.

This report serves as a compendium to the Department's Annual Report to Parliament and provides an update on the 2020 report using data from the 2021 census cycle. It provides a broad overview of the socio-economic gaps between First Nations, Inuit and Métis populations and the non-Indigenous population in Canada. It covers a wide range of social and economic variables that can be linked primarily to data collected as part of the Census of Population. It highlights not only the gaps that exist today, but also the evolution of those gaps over time. The report also acknowledges that while progress has been made, much work remains to address the ongoing challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples and communities and to advance meaningful reconciliation.

In Canada, the Census of Population is conducted every five years. In 2022, data from the 2021 Census of Population were made available. This report focuses on a subset of these data and examines indicators related to income, employment, education, housing, foster care and Indigenous languages. Indicators related to incarceration are also examined using data from the most recent Adult Correctional Services Survey. As new data on the health domains included in the 2020 report have yet to be published, the health indicators are excluded from this report.

Indigenous Peoples in Canada face significant and long-standing socio-economic gaps when compared to the non-Indigenous population. These gaps have been shaped by a long history of colonialism, discrimination and marginalization, which have had a profound impact on Indigenous people and continue to affect their lives today. Although gaps remain, significant work is being done to narrow them and improve conditions. Continued measurement of these socio-economic gaps is important as it helps determine whether progress is being made over time. It can also help demonstrate whether existing programs and policies are properly designed and resourced. Lastly, it can help ensure accountability of those who design and implement programs, policies and calls for reflection to clearly and transparently define what progress means.

Overall, median individual income was higher in 2020Footnote 1 than in 2015 for all Indigenous groups, even after accounting for inflation. Although a similar proportion of individuals were employed compared to 2016, those who were employed made more, bringing home an additional $800 to $4,200 a year in income after adjusting for inflation. Increased income means fewer low-income households. Between the non-Indigenous population and each of the Indigenous groups, there was a clear narrowing of gaps, by 31.8 to 46.5%. The total number of Indigenous people living in a low-income situation dropped from 471,560 in 2015 to 335,560 in 2020. Overall, 136,000 fewer Indigenous people (60,190 Registered Indians living on reserve, 45,030 Registered Indians living off reserve, 8,975 Non-Status Indians, 2,840 Inuit and 18,965 Métis) were living in a low-income situation over 2015. In addition to contextualizing the historic implications of the pandemic on the socio-economic well-being of all Canadians, Census 2026 will be important to determine whether there have been lasting changes in these gaps beyond the availability of government benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Improving Indigenous education is a crucial step towards closing the socio-economic gaps and achieving substantive equality in recognizing that additional service supports may be required to enable Indigenous children to achieve equal outcomes. Among those 25 to 64 years of age with at least a high school education, a small narrowing of the gaps was observed for Registered Indians living off reserve and Non-Status Indians, while a large narrowing of the gap was seen for Métis. In total, there were 80,280 more Indigenous people with a high school education in 2021 (925 Registered Indians living on reserve, 26,150 Registered Indians living off reserve, 25,545 Non-Status Indians, 1,730 Inuit and 25,930 Métis). Increases in high school completion are important as it often represents a critical step to employment and higher education. From 2016 to 2021, there was a widening of the gap for all Indigenous groups in the proportion of the population with a university degree. Although an additional 47,980 Indigenous people (4,985 Registered Indians living on reserve, 14,630 Registered Indians living off reserve, 9,200 Non-Status Indians, 890 Inuit and 18,275 Métis) obtained a university education over 2016, the non-Indigenous population saw greater gains in university completion during the same time period.

Housing quality and conditions generally improved for Indigenous people from 2016 to 2021; however, the narrowing of the gap in the proportion of dwellings that were crowded was due in part to increases in crowding for the non-Indigenous population. Overall, the total number of Indigenous households experiencing crowding was relatively flat from 2016 (25,220 dwellings) to 2021 (25,345 dwellings). Both Métis and Non-Status Indians had lower proportions of crowded dwellings than the non-Indigenous population in 2016 and 2021. There were also substantial improvements in the proportion of dwellings requiring major repairs. From 2016 to 2021, there were 3,715 fewer dwellings associated with Indigenous people that required major repairs.

Indigenous children continue to be overrepresented in foster care. The census data collection method identifies only children in foster care who reside in a private home. It excludes those in institutions, group homes or other care arrangements. The proportion of Registered Indians, Non-Status Indians and Métis children in foster care remained fairly stable over the period. There was an increase of almost one percentage point for Inuit children. In total, there were 17,410 Indigenous children in foster care in 2016 compared to 17,320 in 2021.

In addition to the socio-economic gaps, the declines in Indigenous language knowledge are noteworthy. In 2021, there were over 70 Indigenous languages spoken in Canada. For more than 20 (28.6%) of those languages, 500 or fewer people reported speaking them as their mother tongue. Overall, 243,155 individuals could conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, 188,905 people reported having at least one Indigenous mother tongue and 182,925 reported speaking an Indigenous language at home at least on a regular basis. Indigenous languages are a vital part of Canada's cultural and linguistic diversity and are essential to Indigenous Peoples' identity, culture and well-being. Many of the Indigenous languages in Canada are endangered, at risk of extinction due to the impacts of colonialism, residential schools and ongoing discrimination.

Indigenous Peoples in Canada continue to be overrepresented in the criminal justice system, as both victims and offenders. Reporting on custody admissions is limited to a pan-Indigenous identifier. From 2016 to 2021, the percentage of Indigenous adults who entered a correctional facility for remand or who were sentenced to custody or a community supervision program increased slightly from 29.9% to 31.2%. However, the total number of these admissions decreased considerably during the same period, with the number of admissions for Indigenous adults dropping from 74,823 in 2016 to 46,633 in 2021, a difference of 28,190 people.

Income, employment, education, housing, foster care and incarceration are key areas in which Indigenous Peoples face systemic barriers and inequalities. Continued measurement of these gaps is crucial to inform policies and programs that aim to improve socio-economic conditions and reduce disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, preserving Indigenous languages and promoting language revitalization initiatives can help foster appreciation for Indigenous cultures and maintain this vital component of Canada's linguistic and cultural landscape. Addressing socio-economic disparities and preserving Indigenous languages are essential components of reconciliation. These efforts contribute to the establishment of a more equitable and just society for all Canadians, promoting greater understanding and respect between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples.

Introduction

Each year, Indigenous Services Canada provides a report on:

1. the socio-economic gaps between First Nations, Inuit, Métis and other Canadians and the measures taken by the Department to reduce those gaps; and

2. the progress made towards the transfer of departmental responsibilities to Indigenous organizations as part of its obligations under the Department of Indigenous Services Act. The 2020 report provided a detailed overview of the demographic and socio-economic trends reported on through Statistics Canada's Census of Population.

This compendium report provides an update to the 2020 report using data from the 2021 census cycle. It provides a broad overview of the socio-economic gaps between First Nations, Inuit and Métis and the non-Indigenous population in Canada. It covers a wide range of social and economic variables, ranging from income and education to housing and language use. It highlights not only the gaps that exist today, but also the evolution of those gaps over time.

Method

A note on terminology

At the outset, we wish to acknowledge that some terms in this document may be offensive and problematic for certain individuals who will read this report. While the language that is used in Canada to describe and speak about Indigenous Peoples is evolving to be more respectful and reflective of how Indigenous Peoples and communities themselves choose to be identified, some pieces of legislation continue to use outdated and colonial terminology.

For example, Canada's Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes three distinct "aboriginal peoples of Canada", namely, "Indian, Inuit and Métis". The Government of Canada now uses the terms "Indigenous" and "First Nations". However, "Aboriginal" and "Indian" remain the legal terms that continue to be used in certain circumstances.

Also, as the Indian Act (PDF), a very outdated and colonial piece of legislation, continues to be in effect, terms such as "registered Indian" (also referred to as "status Indian") remain in use. As these remain accepted legal terms, for the purposes of this report, which requires reference to the Indian Act and its provisions and requires precision in terminology for statistical purposes, the legal terms will be used.

Indigenous Peoples is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. More than 1.8 million people in Canada (5.0% of the population of Canada) self-identified as an Indigenous person on Canada's 2021 Census of Population. Indigenous Peoples are the fastest growing population in Canada. Between 2016 and 2021, the Indigenous population grew by 8.0%, while the non-Indigenous population grew by 5.4%. The Indigenous population is also the youngest in Canada: in 2021, 41.2% of Indigenous people were under the age of 25, compared to 27.3% of the non-Indigenous population.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of Indigenous populations across Canada. The figure includes the number of Indigenous individuals living in each province and territory, as well as the proportion of Indigenous Peoples in its overall population. Indigenous Peoples make up the largest proportion of the population in Nunavut (85.8%), the Northwest Territories (49.6%) and the Yukon Territory (22.3%), followed by Manitoba (18.1%) and Saskatchewan (17.0%).

The associated table indicates which proportion of the overall Indigenous population resides in each province and territory. Although Indigenous people comprise only 2.9% of Ontario's population, the province is home to the largest population of Indigenous people, with 406,585 individuals or 22.5% of the Indigenous population in Canada, followed by 16.1 and 15.7% in British Columbia and Alberta, respectively.

The Canadian Constitution recognizes three groups of Indigenous Peoples: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. These are three distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. Figure 2 shows how the composition of Indigenous populations varies across the provinces and territories. This figure also includes "Other Indigenous" which is comprised of those with multiple Indigenous identities and those who identify as a band member only.

Figure 1: Distribution and number of Indigenous people in Canada by province and territory, 2021

Text alternative for Figure 1: Distribution and number of Indigenous people in Canada by province and territory, 2021

Population size

Percentage of Region Population

Percentage of Indigenous Population

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: "Other Indigenous" comprises those with multiple Indigenous identities and those who identify as a band member only.

Composition of the Indigenous population in Canada, 2021

First Nations

The term "First Nations" includes Registered Indians (also called Status Indians) and Non-Status Indians. Registered Indians are individuals registered as Indians under the Indian Act.

According to the Census, there were 831,720 Registered Indians in Canada in 2021, comprising 46.0% of the Indigenous population. According to the Indian Register, which is an administrative list of all Registered Indians that is maintained by Indigenous Services Canada, there were 1,040,319 Registered Indians as of December 31, 2021.

Indigenous Services Canada officially recognizes 619 First Nations in Canada, which represent more than 50 Nations and 50 Indigenous languages.

Some First Nations reside on reserve. A reserve is a parcel of land for which legal title is held by the Crown (Government of Canada), for the use and benefit of a particular First Nation. There are 3,406 reserves in Canada.

According to the 2021 Census of Canada, about 37.5% of Registered Indians live on reserve and 62.5% live off reserve. Overall, 48.0% of Registered Indians live in urban areas.

Of the 883 populated census subdivisions associated with First Nations communities in the 2021 Census, 635 or 71.9% have less than 500 inhabitants while only 39 or 4.4% have more than 2,000 inhabitants.

Non-Status Indians account for 16.3% of the total Indigenous population and live almost exclusively off reserve (97.4%). Overall, 75.0% live in urban areas.

Inuit

Inuit are Indigenous people of the Arctic. The word Inuit means "the people" in the Inuit language of Inuktitut. The singular of Inuit is Inuk.

According to the Census, Canada's self-identified Inuit population was 69,705 in 2021, comprising 0.2% of the national population and 3.9% of the Indigenous population. The majority (69.7%) live in Inuit Nunangat, which means "homeland", and 44.3% in Nunavut in particular.

Inuit Nunangat comprises 51 communities across four regions: Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories and Yukon), Nunavut, Nunavik (northern Quebec), and Nunatsiavut (Labrador).

In the 2021 Census, just over four-fifths (81.2%) of Inuit in Canada reported that they were enrolled under or were a beneficiary of an Inuit land claims agreement. Of Inuit who were enrolled under or were a beneficiary of an Inuit land claim agreement:

32,620 (57.6%) came under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement;

13,235 (23.4%) came under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement;

5,920 (10.5%) came under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement; and

4,860 (8.6%) came under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

Most Inuit who are not enrolled under or are not a beneficiary of a land claim agreement (13,080) live outside Inuit Nunangat (86.4%).

Métis

Of the 624,220 Canadians who self-identified as Métis in the 2021 Census, 224,655 (36.0%) reported membership in a Métis organization or Settlement. Four-fifths (79.8%) reported being a member of one of the five signatories to the Canada-Métis Nation Accord.

In 2021, the Métis Nation of Alberta had the largest membership reported among Métis organizations, at 45,350, followed closely by the Manitoba Métis Federation, at 43,920, and then by the Métis Nation of Ontario (36,240), Métis Nation British Columbia (27,140) and Métis Nation-Saskatchewan (26,700).

3,540 people reported being a member of one of the eight Métis Settlements of Alberta.

Measuring the socio-economic gaps

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 whether 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 programs and policies. Finally, measurement calls for reflection to clearly and transparently define 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 socio-economic dimensions addressed in this report were originally selected and analyzed as part of the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament based on a review of the various socio-economic wellness frameworks being used around the world. This compendium report provides an update on these measures to determine the progress that has been made towards narrowing the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada.

Examining gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations helps contextualize the extent of the differences between groups. Without a basis for comparison, raw statistics are difficult to interpret. It is sometimes suggested that focusing on gaps between different populations is inappropriate as it may involve an implicit value judgment. 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 socio-economic indicators that appear regularly in Indigenous wellness frameworks and that are recognized internationally as important to quality of life in most cultural contexts.

The indicators

The complete set of indicators addressed in this report includes the following.

Domain

Indicator

Data Source

Poverty
Percentage of the population that lived in a low-income situation in the year preceding the Census

Census of Population, Canada, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021

Median employment income
Median employment income received by the working-age population in the year prior to the Census

Census of Population, Canada, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021

University completion
Percentage of the working-age population with a university degree

Census of Population, Canada, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021

State of repair
Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair

Census of Population, Canada, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021

The 2020 Annual Report to Parliament also included a health domain with a number of indicators linked to vital statistics such as life expectancy and infant mortality. Although new publications on these critical indicators are in development, no new data had been published on these indicators as of the time this report was drafted. Therefore, the health domain and its indicators will be omitted from this iteration of the report and will be reported in a future version once the data are available.

Limitations of the data

Data for the first six sets of indicators (from income to housing) are taken from the Census of Population that is conducted every five years and enumerates private dwellings and the people who reside within them. This robust source of socio-economic 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.

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.

Each of the Indigenous identities is determined through a combination of census questions and is subject to interpretation. For example, Statistics Canada looks only at question 24: "Is this person First Nations, Métis or Inuk (Inuit)?" As Indigenous Services Canada is responsible for maintaining the Indian Register, there is a greater emphasis on the importance of identifying Registered versus Non-Status Indians. Indigenous Services Canada considers an individual's response to question 26: "Is this person a Status Indian (Registered or Treaty Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada)?" before question 24 (identity). This seemingly small difference can lead to differences in how the Indigenous identity groups are reported.

Another important limitation is that the Census of Population includes a relatively narrow range of socio-economic indicators and does not capture the various other dimensions of well-being that are important from an Indigenous perspective. For example, the National Outcome-Based Framework includes indicators on governance, the environment, participation in cultural activities, relationship to the land and systemic racism. It also counts only those residing in private dwellings, which leads to an undercount as it inherently excludes those who reside in institutions, who are transient or who are experiencing homelessness.

The 2021 Census was further complicated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which profoundly impacted the way data were collected for this census cycle. The 2021 Census was launched on May 11, 2021. In order to mitigate the circumstances created by the pandemic and prevent further spread of COVID-19 in First Nations and Inuit communities, Statistics Canada implemented a data collection approach that differed from previous censuses. To minimize face-to-face interactions, the 2021 Census data collection initially prioritized self-enumeration (paper questionnaires, online) rather than in-person interviews with an enumerator. In addition to the constraints caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the uncovering of burial sites at former residential schools as well as the forest fires in northern Ontario and the western provinces further impacted participation by Indigenous communities and their residents. In order to mitigate the impact of low participation in the 2021 Census, Statistics Canada revised its data collection strategy in July 2021 and sent travel teams of enumerators to various regions across Canada. Engagement efforts were bolstered through an expanded Indigenous Liaison Program at Statistics Canada, and efforts were made to hire census staff locally within communities.

All data collection activities for the 2021 Census ceased on September 24, 2021. Despite all efforts by Statistics Canada, a total of 63 census subdivisions defined as reserves and settlements were incompletely enumerated. Previously, the number of incompletely enumerated reserves had declined; for example, it was 30 in 2001, 22 in 2006, 36 in 2011 and 14 in 2016. In 2021, the estimated census response rate in Indigenous and northern communities was 85.6%. Comparatively, the overall census response rate was 98% in 2021, and the response rate in Indigenous communities was 92% in 2016.

Given the larger number of First Nations communities that were incompletely enumerated in 2021, Statistics Canada has urged caution when comparing variables that are strongly tied to First Nations reserves. For example, Indigenous language knowledge is typically substantially higher among those residing on a reserve. As some of those responses were not captured during this census data collection cycle, there is an increased risk of potentially erroneous or confounding conclusions. Any potential drop in Indigenous language knowledge may stem from a real drop in the number of Indigenous language speakers or from the fact that fewer Indigenous language speakers were counted this census and are missing from the overall findings.

As we move beyond the census to seek other sources of data on justice, the persistent gaps in data on Indigenous populations become more evident as data are limited to a pan-Indigenous identifier. Where such limitations exist, the best data available are used to illustrate the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.

The analysis

To the extent possible, this analysis is distinctions-based. 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 socio-economic outcomes that are known to exist among the following groups: Registered Indians living on reserve, Registered Indians living off reserve and Non-Status Indians. Where possible, data for the past 20 years have been included to illustrate how socio-economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations have evolved.

Regional 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.

For the first time in census history, 2021 marks the shift to reporting on gender rather than biological sex. A new question on gender was included in the 2021 Census to reflect a growing social and legislative recognition of transgender and non-binary people. Gender identity refers to a person's internal and individual experience with gender. It may not be visible to others and it may not align with socially constructed gender norms. A person may refer to their gender identity in a multitude of ways including Woman, Man, Non-binary, Two-Spirit, Pangender, Agender, Gender Queer, Gender Fluid, Transgender or Cisgender.

The 2021 Census is the first census to provide data on transgender people and non-binary people. Census 2021 allowed individuals to write in responses other than male or female for the gender question. All these responses were condensed into a single non-binary gender for reporting purposes. Even with this amalgamation, the number of non-binary people is still quite small. Given this, Statistics Canada further aggregates data into a two-category gender variable when necessary to protect the confidentiality of responses provided. In these cases, individuals in the category "non-binary persons" are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "＋" symbol. "Men＋" includes men (and/or boys), as well as half of non-binary persons. "Women＋" includes women (and/or girls), as well as half of non-binary persons. Detailed analyses by gender are provided where feasible.

Measuring the gap

A number of different approaches can be taken to assess the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. For instance, the difference between groups (e.g., there was a difference of X % or Y dollars between group A and B) can be used to get a sense of where the gaps exist. However, limiting analysis to look only at the differences between groups can hinder the comparability between groups and indicators over time. Another choice is to examine the relative variation. The % change in gaps can be calculated, allowing for the relative size of the changes to be compared.

In this report, the gap between the total Indigenous population (or Indigenous group) and the non-Indigenous population is provided for each indicator. The gap is reported as the difference between the two populations. An analysis of the % change in the gap from 2016 to 2021 is also presented and discussed where feasible.

A common approach to interpreting % change is to use Cohen's d effect size measure as a guide. According to Cohen's conventions, a small effect size is typically defined as a Cohen's d of 0.2, a medium effect size as a Cohen's d of 0.5, and a large effect size as a Cohen's d of 0.8. Using these conventions, a % change of 5% would be considered a small effect size, a % change of 12.5% would be considered a medium effect size, and a % change of 20% or more would be considered a large effect size.

In the spirit of accessibility and transparency, the goal of this report is to provide a large volume of data to inform partners and stakeholders. For each figure, a brief summary of the more notable findings is presented. The full data tables are available in Appendix A and readers are encouraged to engage with the data. To obtain a copy of the data associated with this report or to obtain additional census data related to Indigenous Peoples in Canada, please contact the Indigenous and Northern Statistics Team (INSTAT) at instat@sac-isc.gc.ca.

Findings

Income - Median individual 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. Median individual income refers to a person's total income before tax from all sources including market income (such as employment wages) and government transfers (such as Old Age Security pension and other government benefit programs). In the census, income information is provide through tax records from the previous calendar year. For example, for data collected in the 2021 Census, income from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 is reported. Similarly, for Census 2016, income data is based on 2015.

Median individual income includes government benefits, which is of particular importance for 2020. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of new government benefits were offered such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). Statistics Canada has analyzed these most recent census data and concluded that "the decrease [in poverty rates] was mostly driven by increased government transfers and temporary pandemic-related benefits."

For a full list of all data tables relevant to median income, please see Appendix A, tables A1.1 to A1.6.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2006 to 2021 Census of Population.

Note: The dollar values have been adjusted for inflation and are stated in terms of their value in 2020.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Given that the non-binary population is small, Statistics Canada implemented a method producing a two-category gender variable to prevent disclosure of identifiable data for lower levels of geography. Consequently, information will be disseminated using the following categories: Men+, Women+. Individuals in the "non-binary persons" category are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol.

Measuring the gap

Overall, in all cases, the gaps between the Indigenous group and the non-Indigenous population shrunk between 2015 and 2020.

There was a large narrowing of the gap in individual median income for all Indigenous groups compared to the non-Indigenous population, with the largest change occurring among Métis, at 30.4%.

Generally, Indigenous women+ had substantially greater gains than Indigenous men+ in terms of closing the gap with their non-Indigenous counterparts.

For Indigenous men+, the gaps in median individual income relative to the non-Indigenous population remained relatively stable between 2015 and 2020, with the exception of Métis for whom the gap more than doubled (220.0%) from $500 in 2015 to $1,600 in 2020.

All Indigenous women+ saw a large narrowing of the gap between 2015 and 2020, particularly Inuit women+ for whom the gap with their non-Indigenous counterparts closed entirely (-100.0%).

It is important to acknowledge that the general narrowing of the gaps may stem from the increased availability of government benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A1.6.

Employment income

The median employment income measure complements employment rates, as it is a common way to assess the quality of jobs held by the employed population. For a full list of all data tables relevant to employment income, please see Appendix A, tables A4.1 to A4.6.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2006 to 2021 Census of Population.

Note: The dollar values have been adjusted for inflation and are stated in terms of their value in 2020.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Given that the non-binary population is small, Statistics Canada produced a two-category gender variable that was applied to prevent disclosure of identifiable data for lower levels of geography when necessary. Consequently, information will be disseminated using the following categories: Men+, Women+. Individuals in the "non-binary persons" category are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol.

Measuring the gaps

After adjusting for inflation from 2015 to 2020, the comparison shows that all Indigenous groups saw an increase in employment income in terms of the amount earned; however, the gaps between each Indigenous group and the non-Indigenous population showed more variability.

There was a large narrowing of the gap in employment income for Inuit, from $10,800 in 2015 to $8,000 in 2020.

There was a medium narrowing of the gap for Registered Indians living on reserve (13.3%), while the gap in employment income remained relatively stable for Registered Indians living off reserve.

There was a widening of the gap for Non-Status Indians and Métis. Both groups saw a small increase in dollar value between 2015 and 2020, of only $900 and $800 respectively.

In general, Indigenous women+ saw greater narrowing of gaps in median employment income than Indigenous men+, although the results are somewhat mixed.

Among Inuit men+, there was a small narrowing of the gap in median employment income compared to the non-Indigenous population, at 13.8%.

For Métis men+, the median employment income was above that of the non-Indigenous population in 2015; the opposite was true in 2020, leading to the seemingly large change in the gap (366.7%), but in reality the change was actually very small.

There was a medium widening of gaps for Registered Indian men+ off reserve and Non-Status Indian men+, at 22.0 and 23.1%, respectively.

Registered Indian women+ off reserve saw a medium narrowing of the gap (14.8%), while Registered Indian women+ living on reserve and Inuit women+ experienced a large narrowing of gaps at 21.0 and 44.0%, respectively.

Like Métis men+, Métis women+ also saw a widening of the gap, at 33.3%.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A4.6.

Education - having at least a high school credential

In addition to being a baseline requirement for many careers, completion of a formal education at the high school level or above has the 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. As with most measures, high school completion can be assessed in a number of ways. The census measures the highest level of education each person has achieved. All individuals who have a high school diploma or equivalency degree or who have engaged in any form of post-secondary education (e.g., university, college or trade school) are considered to have at least a high school credential. As seen in Table 11, there were 80,280 more Indigenous people with a high school education in 2021 than in 2016. For a full list of all data tables relevant to high school completion, please see Appendix A, tables A5.1 to A5.7.

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 young. Looking at the educational attainment of younger cohorts can therefore provide some insight into how the overall gap in education can be expected to change in the future. Simply put, if the gaps are smaller among younger cohorts (under 25 years of age), the overall gaps are in the process of narrowing.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Figure 28: Gap in high school completion (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35+ and 25 to 64, 2021, Canada

Text alternative for Figure 28: Gap in high school completion (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35+ and 25 to 64, 2021, Canada

-36.8

-35.0

-27.3

-30.8

-16.1

-14.2

-11.0

-12.6

-12.2

-9.8

-6.3

-8.0

-39.6

-37.8

-31.7

-34.7

-6.3

-5.2

-4.8

-5.2

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Regional variation in high school attainment is modest among Métis, and the gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population range from close to zero in the four Atlantic Provinces to 14.4 percentage points in the Northwest Territories.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A5.5.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Given that the non-binary population is small, Statistics Canada produced a two-category gender variable that was applied to prevent disclosure of identifiable data for lower levels of geography when necessary. Consequently, information will be disseminated using the following categories: Men+, Women+. Individuals in the "non-binary persons" category are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol.

Measuring the gaps

There was an increase in the overall percentage of people with at least a high school credential; however, the gap did not close for all Indigenous groups compared to the non-Indigenous population.

There was a small narrowing of the gap for Registered Indians living off reserve (12.0%) and for Non-Status Indians (10.1%).

There was a large narrowing of the gap for Métis (24.6%).

The gaps for Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit were relatively stable from 2016 to 2021.

There was a small narrowing of the gap in high school completion rates for Registered Indian men+ living off reserve (7.2%) and Non-Status Indian men+ (7.4%). Métis men+ saw a medium narrowing of the gap (19.8%), from 8.6% in 2016 to 6.9% in 2021.

There was a small widening of the gap for Inuit men+, from 32.9% in 2016 to 36.6% in 2021.

Between Indigenous women+ and non-Indigenous women+, there was a narrowing of gaps in the percentage of people with a high school education across all groups except Inuit women+ for whom the gap remained relatively stable.

Métis women+ saw the largest narrowing of the gap at 28.3%, from 5.3% in 2016 to 3.7% in 2021.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A5.7.

Children in foster care

The Census of Population is designed to enumerate private households. Therefore, with respect to children in foster care, the census counts only those who reside in a private home. Those living in institutions, group homes or other care arrangements are not included in census counts related to children in foster care and are therefore not reflected in the data presented in this report.

Indigenous children are far more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in foster care. Although Indigenous Peoples represent only 5.0% of the Canadian population, Indigenous children make up over half (52.0%) of the children in foster care (Figure 51). From 2016 to 2021, the number of Indigenous children in foster care was relatively flat, decreasing by only 90 children in 5 years (Table 21). For a full list of all data tables relevant to children in foster care, please see Appendix A, tables A9.1 to A9.4.

The regional breakdowns for Inuit are not presented as the small numbers make it difficult to interpret differences in the percentage of Inuit children in foster care across Inuit regions. It is notable that the percentage of Inuit children in foster care inside Inuit Nunangat (2.0%) is lower than the percentage outside Inuit Nunangat (8.0%). However, this pattern could be misleading as some Inuit children in foster care outside Inuit Nunangat may originate from families inside Inuit Nunangat.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Indigenous children are over-represented in foster care. Of all children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 26.3% were Registered Indian children living off reserve, 9.2% were Non-Status Indian children, 7.6% were Registered Indian children living on reserve, 5.8% were Métis children and 2.6% were Inuit children.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Figure 52 includes a statistic for all Registered Indian children, in addition to the breakdown between those 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 in foster care off reserve may come from families living on reserve.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Registered Indian includes both those living on and off reserve since Registered Indian children in foster care off reserve may come from families living on reserve.

Figure 54: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Text alternative for Figure 54: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Registered Indians

Non-Status Indian

Non-Indigenous

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Registered Indians include both those living on and off reserve since Registered Indian children in foster care off reserve may come from families living on reserve.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

The percentage of Métis children in foster care differed markedly across regions, peaking in Manitoba at 2.6%.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A9.4.

Measuring the gaps

Indigenous children in Canada continue to be overrepresented in foster care.

The proportion of Indigenous children in foster care in 2021 remained relatively stable compared to 2016 with the exception of Inuit children.

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. In 2021, there were over 70 Indigenous languages spoken in Canada. For more than 20 (28.6%) of those languages, 500 or fewer people reported speaking them as their mother tongue. In 2021, 243,155 individuals could conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, 188,905 people reported having at least one Indigenous mother tongue and 182,925 reported speaking an Indigenous language at home on a regular basis. From 2016 to 2021, the number of individuals able to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language dropped by over 20,000 (Table 23). This may be due in part to the 63 incompletely enumerated First Nations communities for the 2021 Census. For a full list of all data tables relevant to Indigenous language knowledge, please see Appendix A, tables A10.1 to A10.8.

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.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

In 2021, knowledge of an Indigenous language, meaning the proportion of Indigenous people who can conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, was highest among Inuit (58.5%) and Registered Indians living on reserve (40.4%), and lowest among Métis (1.2%) and Non-Status Indians (1.8%).

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A10.1.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Figure 58: Percentage of First Nations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Text alternative for Figure 58: Percentage of First Nations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Registered Indian on reserve

Registered Indian off reserve

Non-Status Indian

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Given that the non-binary population is small, Statistics Canada produced a two-category gender variable that was applied to prevent disclosure of identifiable data for lower levels of geography when necessary. Consequently, information will be disseminated using the following categories: Men+, Women+. Individuals in the "non-binary persons" category are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol.

The likelihood of knowing an Indigenous language was similar for men+ and women+ across all Indigenous populations.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A10.6

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Justice - Incarceration

Disproportionate levels of incarceration can be a strong indicator that a holistic examination is needed of both crime and the institutional responses to it. The Adult Correctional Services Survey collects annual data on the delivery of adult correctional services from both the provincial/territorial and federal correctional systems. Reporting on custody admissions is limited to a pan-Indigenous identifier. In 2021, 46,633 Indigenous people were admitted to remand, custody or community sentence. From 2016 to 2021, the total number of Indigenous adult admissions decreased considerably from 74,823 to 46,633, a difference of 28,190 people (Table 24). For a full list of all data tables relevant to incarceration, please see Appendix A, tables A11.1 to A11.2.

Indigenous

Non-Indigenous

Indigenous identity unknown

Number

Percentage change from previous year

Number

Percentage change from previous year

Number

Percentage change from previous year

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population and 2021 to 2022 Adult Correctional Services Survey.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2016 to 2017 to 2021 to 2022 Adult Correctional Services Survey.

A focus on urban settings

According to the 2021 Census, about 48.0% of Registered Indians, 75.0% of Non-Status Indians, 50.7% of Inuit, and 71.1% of Métis live in urban areas. 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.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Urban employment rates were almost identical to total employment rates both in the overall trends and relative to each other.

In urban settings, the highest employment rate was among Métis (69.5%) and the lowest among Registered Indians living off reserve (58.1%).

Urban employment rates and corresponding gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population were relatively stable for Registered Indians off reserve, Non-Status Indians and Métis when compared to overall employment trends and disparities (both in urban settings and throughout Canada).

Among Inuit, the urban employment rate was higher than the total employment rate (59.1% compared to 55.2%).

Accordingly, the gap in employment rate among Inuit living in urban areas relative to their non-Indigenous counterparts compared to the gap among Inuit in total was slightly smaller, at 20.5 percentage points.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Tables 12.1 and 12.2.

Measuring the gaps

The gap in employment rate among Indigenous people in urban areas remained relatively stable from 2016 to 2021 for Registered Indians off reserve, Non-Status Indians and Métis.

Among Inuit, he the gap in employment rate narrowed by 7.3%, from 16.4% in 2016 to 15.2% in 2021.

Conclusions

Indigenous Peoples in Canada face significant and long-standing socio-economic gaps when compared to non-Indigenous people. These gaps have been shaped by a long history of colonialism, discrimination and marginalization, which have profoundly impacted Indigenous communities and continue to affect their lives today. This report focuses on the gaps for which the Census of Population can be used to assess the scale and scope of changes over time. The Department's 2020 Report to Parliament established baseline measures for many of these indicators and quantified the gaps between the socio-economic well-being of Indigenous Peoples and their non-Indigenous counterparts. In summary, Indigenous Peoples in Canada were found to experience significant disparities in well-being compared to non-Indigenous Canadians. Indigenous Peoples in Canada have lower median incomes and are more likely to live in poverty. They also experience significant employment disparities compared to non-Indigenous Canadians, as the unemployment rate among Indigenous people is generally higher. Indigenous Peoples in Canada experience lower levels of educational attainment compared to non-Indigenous Canadians, including lower rates of high school graduation and university education. They are more likely than non-Indigenous Canadians to experience inadequate housing conditions. In the criminal justice system, Indigenous Peoples are overrepresented in incarceration rates. Indigenous children in Canada are also vastly overrepresented in the child welfare system, accounting for a disproportionate number of children in foster care.

As seen throughout this report, progress has been made towards closing these gaps, but at times the extent of progress can be difficult to assess. Given that a 5.0-percent change would be considered a small effect size, a 12.5-percent change would be considered a medium effect size and a 20-percent change or more would be considered a large effect size, it is possible to examine all domains to determine the direction and size of the relative change in socio-economic gaps between Indigenous Peoples in Canada and the non-Indigenous population (Table 26). For a full summary of each domain, see Appendix B.

From 2015 to 2020, median individual income increased across the board. Even after accounting for inflation, income was higher for all Indigenous identities and increased at a higher rate than that of the non-Indigenous population. A large narrowing of the gap was observed for each Indigenous group, with increases ranging from $4,500 to $9,900 since 2015. Increased income meant fewer households in a low-income situation. Again, a large narrowing of the gap was observed between each Indigenous group and the non-Indigenous population. The narrowing of gaps ranged from 31.8% for Inuit to 46.5% for Non-Status Indians. The total number of Indigenous people living in a low-income situation dropped from 471,560 in 2015 to 335,560 in 2020. Overall, 136,000 fewer Indigenous people (60,190 Registered Indians living on reserve, 45,030 Registered Indians living off reserve, 8,975 Non-Status Indians, 2,840 Inuit and 18,965 Métis) were living in a low-income situation since 2015.

Registered Indian on reserve

Registered Indian off reserve

Non-Status Indian

Inuit

Métis

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2016 to 2021 Census of Population.

Since 2016, there have been slight improvements in the gaps in employment rate relative to the non-Indigenous population for Registered Indians living on reserve, Non-Status Indians and Métis. Even though the gaps remained stable for Registered Indians living off reserve and Inuit, the 2021 findings are noteworthy. Given the employment challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic such as lockdowns, business closures and changes in consumer habits, the fact that Indigenous people remained employed at proportionate levels to their non-Indigenous peers is an important finding. In 2016, 502,925 Indigenous people were employed, and that number rose to 538,415 in 2021; an additional 35,490 Indigenous people were working in 2021 with increases across all Indigenous groups (10,020 Registered Indians living off reserve, 16,725 Non-Status Indians, 1,040 Inuit and 10,060 Métis) with the exception of Registered Indians living on reserve, who saw a decline of 2,355 employed people. The gaps in employment income were more varied, as the gap narrowed for some groups (Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit), one group saw no change (Registered Indians living off reserve) and for others, the gap widened (Non-Status Indians and Métis). Despite these differences, employment income was higher in 2020 for all Indigenous groups, even after accounting for inflation, with individuals bringing home an additional $800 to $4,200 per year in income. Census 2026 will be important to determine how the increased availability of government benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted income and employment. Census 2026 will be crucial in helping contextualize the historic implications of the pandemic on the socio-economic well-being of all Canadians.

In total, 80,280 more Indigenous people aged 25 to 64 had a high school education in 2021 than in 2016 (925 Registered Indians living on reserve, 26,150 Registered Indians living off reserve, 25,545 Non-Status Indians, 1,730 Inuit and 25,930 Métis). For Registered Indians living off reserve, Non-Status Indians and Métis, the gaps in the proportion of those 25 to 64 years of age with at least a high school education compared to the non-Indigenous population narrowed, ranging from 10.1 to 24.6%. From 2016 to 2021, an additional 47,980 Indigenous people (4,985 Registered Indians living on reserve, 14,630 Registered Indians living off reserve, 9,200 Non-Status Indians, 890 Inuit and 18,275 Métis) obtained a university education. Despite these gains, the gaps in university completion relative to the non-Indigenous population widened for all Indigenous groups, from 15.9 to 22.9%. Education is the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. By improving education outcomes among Indigenous people, we can equip individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the modern economy. This can help Indigenous people secure higher-paying jobs and improve their overall economic well-being. Education is a powerful tool for promoting social inclusion and cultural revitalization. Indigenous education can help preserve and revitalize traditional cultures and languages, which are important components of Indigenous identity. This can foster a sense of belonging and pride in Indigenous communities, which can lead to improved mental health and social cohesion. Improving Indigenous education can also help address the historical injustices and traumas experienced by Indigenous Peoples.

Generally speaking, housing quality and conditions improved for Indigenous people from 2016 to 2021. The gaps in both the proportion of dwellings that were crowded and the proportion of dwellings in need of major repair generally narrowed between census cycles. However, the narrowing of the gap in the proportion of crowded dwellings was due in part to increases in crowded dwellings among the non-Indigenous population. The greatest decline in the number of crowded dwellings was found among Registered Indians living on reserve, from 12,160 crowded dwellings in 2016 to 10,705 in 2021, a difference of 1,455. From 2016 to 2021, although the non-Indigenous dwellings in need of major repair increased by 2,525, the number of Indigenous dwellings in need of major repair dropped by 3,715. This decline was driven by 6,005 fewer dwellings of Registered Indians living on reserve and 485 fewer dwellings of Registered Indians living off reserve requiring major repair.

Indigenous children continue to be overrepresented in foster care. The census data collection method identifies only children in foster care who reside in a private home. It excludes those in institutions, group homes or other care arrangements. The proportions of Registered Indian, Non-Status Indian and Métis children in foster care were actually fairly stable over the period. The proportion of Inuit children in foster care increased by almost 1.0%. In total, there were 17,410 Indigenous children in foster care in 2016 compared to 17,320 in 2021.

In addition to socio-economic gaps, declines in Indigenous language knowledge are noteworthy. In 2021, 243,155 individuals could conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, 188,905 people reported having at least one Indigenous mother tongue and 182,925 reported speaking an Indigenous language at home at least on a regular basis. In 2021, there were over 70 Indigenous languages spoken in Canada. For more than 20 (28.6%) of those languages, 500 or fewer people reported speaking them as their mother tongue. Indigenous languages are a vital part of the country's cultural and linguistic diversity and are essential to Indigenous Peoples' identity, culture and well-being. Many of the Indigenous languages in Canada are endangered, facing the risk of extinction due to the impacts of colonialism, residential schools and ongoing discrimination. The loss of Indigenous languages has significant impacts on Indigenous Peoples' well-being, cultural identity and sense of belonging. Language loss also results in the loss of traditional knowledge and cultural practices.

Indigenous Peoples in Canada continue to be overrepresented in the criminal justice system, as both victims and offenders. From 2016 to 2021, the percentage of Indigenous adults who entered a correctional facility for remand or who were sentenced to custody or a community supervision program increased slightly from 29.9% to 31.2%. However, the total number of these admissions decreased considerably during this same period, from 74,823 in 2016 to 46,633 in 2021, a difference of 28,190 people.

Addressing socio-economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in areas such as income, employment, education, housing, foster care and incarceration is crucial for reconciliation. These gaps are a result of systemic barriers and inequalities that have led to the marginalization of Indigenous Peoples.

Addressing these socio-economic gaps requires a holistic approach that takes into account not only economic factors but also social, cultural and spiritual factors. This includes supporting language and cultural revitalization, improving access to education and promoting community empowerment. Further narrowing the disparities between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations will require additional commitments to address historical and ongoing injustices, support Indigenous self-determination and incorporate Indigenous knowledge and perspectives into policy and program development. Indigenous-led solutions and approaches are necessary to address the socio-economic gaps experienced by Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Table B1. Overview of the change in gap observed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations from 2016 to 2021 for all domain indicators, Canada

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2016 to 2021 Census of Population.

Notes:

A % change of 5.0% would be considered a small effect size, a % change of 12.5% would be considered a medium effect size and a % change of 20.0% or more would be considered a large effect size.

The on/off reserve breakdown is not included for children in foster care as it may be misleading, since Registered Indian children in foster care off reserve may come from families living on reserve.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

In the census, income is reported for the previous calendar year. For the 2021 census, income data were based on total earnings in 2020.
Return to footnote 1 referrer

Thank you for your feedback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An update on the socio-economic gaps between Indigenous Peoples and the non-Indigenous population in Canada: Highlights from the 2021 Census

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Compendium Report to the Department's 2023 Annual Report to Parliament.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Postsecondary educational attainment and labour market outcomes among Indigenous peoples in Canada, findings from the 2021 Census

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study uses data from the 2021 Census to report on postsecondary educational attainment and labour market outcomes among Indigenous adults aged 25 to 64 years. As First Nations people, Métis and Inuit are more likely to live in certain regions, which can impact their participation in both education and the labour market, the article pays particular attention to patterns in educational attainment and employment among those residing in remote areas, on reserve, and communities across Inuit Nunangat.

# data[].attributes.body
Indigenous peoples have some of the highest suicide rates in the world. For children and youth, the suicide rate was 10 times higher for boys and 22 times higher for girls between 2005 and 2007. The main reason for these high suicide rates is the trauma caused by colonization.

# data[].attributes.body
The government’s report showed that 13.5% of First Nations rely on trucked-in water, 13% have wells, and 1.5% don’t have water service at all. A major reason for the lack of clean drinking water is contamination. Some communities don’t have water treatment plants, making the situation worse.

# data[].attributes.body
Indigenous children make up 7.7% of all children, but 53.8% of them are in foster care. Manitoba has the highest rate, with 61.8 per 1,000 Indigenous children in foster care. This is because of past policies that separated Indigenous children from their families.

# data[].attributes.body
Indigenous women make up 16% of all female homicide victims and 11% of missing women. 56% of Indigenous women have been physically assaulted, and 46% have faced sexual assault. Between 2001 and 2014, the average homicide rate for Indigenous women was four times higher than for non-Indigenous women.

4o mini

# data[].attributes.body
3% of the adult Indigenous population has been incarcerated in a provincial adult correctional facility. The highest Over-Representation Index for Indigenous people was in Saskatchewan, where it was 17.7 times higher than the non-Indigenous population. The over-representation of Indigenous women in provincial correctional facilities is even greater, at 15.4 times higher than non-Indigenous women, compared to 8.4 times higher for Indigenous men.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2021, just under half of Indigenous people aged 25 to 64 had completed a postsecondary certificate, degree, or diploma. Around half of Indigenous adults had completed some form of postsecondary education. Only 63% of First Nations youth finished high school, and non-Indigenous youth were more likely to graduate than Indigenous youth.

# data[].attributes.body
Over a quarter of Indigenous people have unmet health care needs. In the 12 months before the survey, 32% of First Nations people living off reserve, 30% of Métis, and 29% of Inuit reported unmet health care needs. One reason for this is doctors giving the wrong prescriptions.