Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) is the sole national representative organization whose affiliates are open to over 800,000 off-reserve Indian, Inuit, and Metis people. CAP's constituency not only stretches across Canada from sea to sea to sea, but consists of a wide variety of Aboriginal peoples with very different historical backgrounds, and current environments. Most of these peoples share common problems in terms of exclusion from policies and programs for other Aboriginal peoples. As a result of their varying histories and circumstances, however, several of these peoples have different priorities in terms of achieving a solution to those common problems. These priorities provide one useful way by which CAP's constituency can be identified. They can be described in terms of:

1. -the Indian Act system and its consequences; particularly for those who are excluded from registration, band membership, residency on reserve, or related programs and benefits and want to address those concerns.

2. -the constituency's Aboriginal and/or treaty rights; particularly for those who live in comprehensive claims areas, those who have been excluded from treaty benefits, or who are pursung modern treaty as a vehicle for addressing their rights.

3. -the population's socio-demographics; particularly for those who are seeking economic parity or equity of access to policies, programs and services designed to serve the Aboriginal population; and,

4. -the simplicity or complexity of the Tribal/Nationality identities within regional organizations; particularly for those organizations whose membership maintains tribal affiliations, or who includes different groups who are associated with different tribal groupings.

Each approach carries with it implications for the relations between CAP and the federal government, and each is valid in its own context.

The Indian Act regime imposed on Aboriginal peoples over the past 120 years is held officially, by the government and by CAP, to be outdated, paternalistic and contrary to the objectives of Aboriginal selfgovernment. The current federal goal of eliminating the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act regime is applauded by CAP. As the following outline of the constituency of CAP clearly indicates, the need for distinct representation of offreserve Aboriginal peoples continues.

CAP is of the view that many federal policies remain significantly biased by the "old regime" of the Indian Act, notwithstanding the public objective of government to terminate that regime. This is perhaps the single most important obstacle to establishing a new relationship between the government and the CAP's constituency, which includes:

Status Indian people who reside offreserve, numbering 230,000 and including the 100,000 who have achieved "reinstatement" under Bill C31. These individuals either cannot participate in band government by virtue of residency rules or wish to have their own needs and interests addressed by offreserve collective organizations recognized by governments as at least the equivalent of "bands". Some elements of this population seek "new band" recognition, while others, perhaps the majority, seek new initiatives to secure their identities in an offreserve environment while retaining some civil and political rights and a cultural and social connection to their communities of origin.

Nonstatus Indian people are those who are socially or genetically connected to federallyrecognized bands but who are not entitled, under Indian Act regulations, to registered Indian status and, in most cases, are therefore not technically entitled to band membership. The 1991 Census implies that some 250,000 persons identify as Indians who are not technically eligible for "status".

This population pursues two broad goals. Where they are intermixed with other Aboriginal people, the goal is one of achieving common programs and services and selfgovernment, whether on a landbase or not. In circumstances where they seek reinstatement for benefits unconnected with band membership, such as health and education, the goal is amendments to the Indian Act to widen "status" entitlements.

Indians who were neverregistered Estimated at approximately 40,000, these people and their traditional communities are completely outside the Indian Act system because the system has been applied so as to exclude them, as in Labrador (Innu), Newfoundland (Micmac), Ontario/Quebec (vagrant Indians and "irregular bands" such as Ojibougamou) and in parts of Alberta, as well as in parts of central and northern Manitoba. These are fairly well defined communities, but they have and are subject to being factionalized as families and individuals because of the vagaries of the Indian Act (e.g., the HalfBreed Treaty Adhesion Band at Rainy River, the Alberta Metis settlements, "late additions" to Bands in Ontario and the Prairies and B.C. and, most recently, in the case of the Woodland Cree Band.

The main objectives for these groups have been recognition of Aboriginal rights, including lands and resources and selfgovernment. There is also some remnant band splintering effects caused by previous choices to assimilate into already recognized bands. Almost all of the people involved in this category live in rural or remote areas.

Metis people are located in all of the provinces and territories of Canada. These persons, who may or may not be entitled to status under the Indian Act, are Metis culturally, historically, and for purposes of constitutional recognition. Some of this group are a distinctive mixed blood population, others are closely identified with the history and culture of the French/Cree Metis in southern Manitoba and central Saskatchewan in the 1860s.

A third group identifies themselves in terms of specific Tribal connections but are collectively distinct as social communities (e.g., Bush Cree/Metis; "BayMetis" in Northern Ontario, and Gwitchin Metis in the northern McKenzie). Specific objectives of these groups vary considerably, but usually include claims settlement in connection with related bands/Inuit settlements (the MNNWT and LMA), claims settlements for small groups of Metis in Ontario and joint initiatives for programs, services and selfgovernment for rural and urban groups, usually in common with rural and urban nonstatus and status offreserve Indians.

Another way to identify the CAP constituency is in terms of its links to Aboriginal or treaty rights. From 1983 to 1992 a key focus of the NCC in constitutional discussions was the theme of "Equity of Access". The objective was, then, to break down the direct and indirect barriers of the old federal Indian Act regime and ensure that equitable access by Indian and Metis people to their rights was assured. This approach sees the current Indian Act system as an obstacle to accessing both collective and individual rights. This helps to explain the determination of many CAP affiliates to pursue litigation to eliminate the Indian Act exclusions as a basis for the implementation of Aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Sparrow decision, along with the Simon and Sioui cases and a host of lower court rulings, confirm the CAP approach, as does the Department of Justice's own legal opinion on the Sparrow decision. In CAP's view, the equity approach is a fair and legitimate challenge of current government policies that impede access to Aboriginal and/or treaty rights implementation and to related claims. One consequence of this approach is the need to overhaul federal policies and programs that attempt to serve Aboriginal community needs in such areas as education, health, housing and economic development, among others. Otherwise the federal government would likely continue, as it is now, to undermine the integrity of Aboriginal and treaty rights by organizing its spending power so as to fragment Aboriginal communities on the basis of an Indian Act system of status and residence on reserve which has already been rejected by all Aboriginal people.

Treaty Rights Groups:

Title claims have been accepted to date by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (DIAND) for some of the constituency of the Council for Yukon First Nations (CYFN), the Metis Nation of the Northwest Territories (MNNWT), and most of the United Native Nations' (UNN) membership. The Labrador Metis Nation (LMN) is now finalizing a land claim submission to DIAND. In the North and B.C., DIAND's policies are completely open to the full participation of our constituency and affiliates, and the CAP's concerns are to improve the application of existing federal policies to northern CAP costituents. To the degree that the Indian Act regime does not intrude upon comprehensive claims policy, the issue of "status" or "Metis" does not arise. In the other areas, however, there are presumptions of exclusion based either on bad law or bad policy arising from the intrusion of the Indian Act which excludes groups and individuals based on status and/or residence off reserve.

PostConfederation Treaties

PreConfederation Treaty Areas:

In southern Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic region, there is no process in place for implementing treaties or negotiating claims based on Aboriginal title. CAP's Atlantic affiliates, all share common Treaty and title interests with reservebased Indians. Relations between on and offreserve groups appear to be the strongest factor in resolving some problems, particularly where national identity is not confused with band membership or residence. Relatively progressive initiatives in Nova Scotia in the fisheries and hunting areas are occurring on matters of treaty harvesting and justice administration. In both cases the Department is taking a leading interest in relations with all Indian people, represented by onreserve bands as well as by our offreserve affiliates.

A final way of identifying CAP's constituency is by their National and Tribal organization. CAP represents Aboriginal Peoples organized in a variety of ways including political communities of interest. The membership of the AFN is usually defined in terms of Indian Act bands and their elected or appointed Chiefs. In some cases reserve based communities constitute the majority of a band's membership, but in most cases Indian Act bands are controlled by reserve residents - an essentially municipal formulation that is increasingly being challenged by large numbers of off-reserve Indians.

The definitions of Aboriginal persons varies from census to census which makes it very difficult to establish socio-demographic trends -- especially for the CAP constituency which includes Aboriginal persons living away from reserves.The failure of the 1986, 1991and 1996 Census to provide accurate data on self-identification of Aboriginal peoples, along with the reserve-oriented focus of Departmental data-gathering efforts, makes it exceptionally difficult to provide a clear socio-demographic profile of the CAP's constituency.

However, by organizing the CAP's constituency in relation to the social and economic realities of urban, rural and remote locations, and taking into consideration the size of these communities in relation to non-Aboriginals, we can provide useful information to both the Federal government and Canadians, in general. The value of this approach is the resulting identification of changes needed to various social, cultural and economic support programs.

Urban:

According to the 2001 census about 80% of all persons who reported on the Aboriginal origins live away from reserves. The majority of these persons live in the larger urban centres across Canada. Once Aboriginal persons leave the reserve, Aboriginal people lose the benefits which accrue to reserve residency. Neither the the federal or provincial governments have developed programming for this group -- a situation with which CAP is very much concerned. Some 50% of all off-reserve Aboriginal people live in urban centers with populations over 10,000. CAP is interested in planning initiatives for its urban population, particularly as affiliates are engaged in a variety of program and service delivery functions that could and should be utilized to extend governmental programs to off-reserve Indians and Metis. Of particular concern are the areas of housing, health and cultural survival and to facilitate wider self-government goals (such as in education, welfare, child care). CAP has a number of national initiatives underway in these areas that strongly merit close cooperation with all federal departments to develop integrative solutions.

Rural:

CAP has traditionally been strongly representative of rural based Metis and Indians, largely because the main anchor service controlled by CAP and by our affiliates has been CMHC's Rural and Native Housing Program. This population has also been heavily affected by Bill C-31, with many having received status but few able to "re-join" the band or to view reserve-based institutions as a source for accommodation of their needs or aspirations. For some, aspirations may not extend beyond the services already provided by the affiliate concerned, backed up by whatever sense of security that membership in a near-by band may provide. In many other cases, the communities affected have strong communal ties that have not been disrupted by C-31's implementation. Affiliates are finding it increasingly difficult to address the "overlap" issues involved in coordinating self-government initiatives off-reserve with what is happening on-reserve, a fact borne out by the NCC's 1990 special study of off-reserve communities (reported at Module 3 of the Minister of Indian Affairs' Report to Parliament on the Impact of C-31).

Remote:

CAP's remote constituents include two basic sub-groups. There are families and individuals in remote areas facing specific problems such as exclusion from bands or claims groups, conflicts with the law or with service agencies, or who have expressed needs for assistance in the area of employment or economic development (harvesters, transporters, retailers etc.). There are also communities or significant sub-groups of communities that have been "left out" or "excluded" from wider processes of Aboriginal claims, treaty entitlements etc. who wish help in accessing their rights and related processes with full corporate, as well as individual, recognition. Regional groups that are particularly affected by "remote" concerns, are the Council for Yukon First Nations (CYFN) and, the Labrador Metis Nation (LMA) the and Federation of Newfoundland Indians (FNI), northern Ontario communities, the United Native Nations' (UNN) northern and interior zones, the Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba (ICFNM)I and the Native Council of Canada of Alberta. (NCC(A)).

The following information is provided by Professor  V. F. Valentine as part of an ongoing Socio-Demographic Statistical Analysis and Research Project within CAP.   The purpose of the project is to examine existing statistics related to off-reserve Aboriginal peoples to ensure they accurately reflect the reality of CAP constituency and, where appropriate,  reprofile those statistics to inform those who need statistical information about off-reserve Aboriginal peoples.

Comparison of Selected Characteristics of Aboriginal Ancestry Population With the General Population of Canada

Compiled and Analyzed  by Prof. V.F. Valentine, 
CAP, Socio-Demographic Statistical Analysis and Research Project, 
January 21, 1999.  - Source Statistics Canada, 1996 Census

The following table has been extracted from a paper being developed by CAP entitled "The Creation of CAP's Constituency by Federal Legilsation." The 60 entries in the table represent those populations of CAP constituents who, although they are unquestionably Aboriginal people within the meaning of Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, have been deprived of access to rights and/or benefits, which they would naturally enjoy exept that they have been denied or interefered with by Federal legislation -- chiefly the Indian Act.

Types of CAP Constituents Created by Federal Legislation