indigeneity and marginalisation: planning for and with urban aboriginal communities in canada

Review

Indigeneity and marginalisation: Planning for and

with urban Aboriginal communities in Canada

Evelyn Peters

Department of Geography, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Dr, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A5

CHAPTER 1Ryan Walker (co-author of chapter 1)

Introducing a framework

In the 1940s, relatively few Aboriginal1 people lived in cities in Canada. Since then, the

urban Aboriginal population has increased steadily. According to the 2001 Census, 49.1%

of Aboriginal people lived in urban areas, with about one-quarter of the Aboriginal

population in 10 of Canada’s census metropolitan areas2 (Statistics Canada, 2003).

Aboriginal populations comprise the largest minority group in many prairie cities, and

their social and economic conditions are central to the future of these cities. Poverty levels

are high. Programs and services available to urban Aboriginal people most often define

them in terms of their social and economic needs (Peters, 2000). However, many

Aboriginal people arrive in cities expecting their histories and their status as Aboriginal

people to make a difference to their access to institutions and services. In this way,

Aboriginal people are not like other urban residents. These characteristics pose unique

challenges to planning and to urban theory. While this paper focuses on the situation of

urban Aboriginal people in Canada, there are implications that may provide insights for

other countries as well.

Planning theorists have worked at unsettling the myth of value-neutrality in planning

systems, pointing out how dominant societal cultures permeate the assumptions and

practices of urban planners and the policies that guide them. Literature on planning for

Progress in Planning 63 (2005) 327–404

www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann

0305-9006/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.progress.2005.03.008

E-mail address: [email protected] I employ the term ‘Aboriginal’ to refer to all the original inhabitants of Canada and their descendants.2 A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) is a very large urban area, together with adjacent urban and rural areas

which have a high degree of economic and social integration with that urban area. It is delineated around an urban

area that has a population of at least 100 000.

E. Peters / Progress in Planning 63 (2005) 327–404328

multiple publics and diversity is relevant for the situation of urban Aboriginal populations.

However, the issues of Aboriginal rights and self-government have not been emphasised

in the urban planning literature, although they are present in the work of planners

concerned with rural and reserve-based populations. Moreover, planners using a diversity

framework to address Aboriginality in cities have not specifically addressed the economic

marginality of Aboriginal populations. Here, these frameworks are brought together to

explore the situation of urban Aboriginal people in Canada. This paper explores whether

Aboriginal people are marginalised in urban areas. It also examines the implications of

indigeneity, defined by Maaka and Fleras (2000: 89) as the “politicisation of ‘original

occupancy’ as a basis for entitlement and engagement”. The right of Aboriginal peoples to

govern their own affairs is central to the idea of indigeneity.3

This chapter provides a framework for the analysis in the chapters that follow. It begins

with a review of contemporary planning approaches to urban Aboriginal peoples and the

challenge of addressing indigeneity and self-government. Then it traces ideas about urban

marginality and their applicability to contemporary urban areas. Finally, it addresses some

issues of definition and measurement.

1.1. Planning for diversity and the challenge of indigeneity

Planning theorists have challenged the notion that there is a unitary and universal

‘public interest’ with which planners can work to realise benefits on behalf of a

homogeneous public (e.g. Sandercock, 1998; Bollens, 2002). The definition of a universal

public interest coincided with the emergence of dominant national cultures such as those

of the British and French in Canada (Qadeer, 1997) and comparable western European

cultures in other settler nations (e.g. Dunn et al., 2001b) that are now grappling with the

reconciliation of dominant cultural values with those of Aboriginal peoples (e.g. Matunga,

2000). Holston (1995) has noted that planning (theory and practice) needs to evolve

toward an understanding and incorporation of the distinct ethnographies of everyday life

among different socio-cultural groups that reveal different sets of needs and aspirations.

Sandercock (1998: 206) suggested that in the face of Marxist, feminist, and post-

structuralist challenges to the concept of a universal public interest, it is more constructive

to conceive of planning for a ‘heterogeneous public’ or ‘multiple publics’. She argued that

while planning never was truly value-neutral (even if it operated on that assumption) it

ought to be consciously ‘value-sensitive’ in its accommodation (rather than eradication) of

difference (Sandercock, 1998: 206). Introducing the utopian concept of ‘cosmopolis’ as a

social project to ensure the continued relevance of planning in the 21st century, she defined

this term as “a city/region in which there is a genuine connection with, and respect and

space for, the cultural other, and the possibility of working together on matters of common

destiny, a recognition of intertwined fates” (Sandercock, 1998: 125). Sandercock (1998:

206) argued that working within an urban lifespace where there is a heterogeneous

3 An alternative way of organising a discussion of urban Aboriginal people would be by policy sector—housing,

health, justice, education and so on. There are two main reasons for rejecting this approach. First, information is

very difficult to obtain for many cities, and second, the information could become repetitive.

E. Peters / Progress in Planning 63 (2005) 327–404 329

(or multiple) public and fragmented public interest will require that planners develop

multi- and cross-cultural literacies that may have seemed unimportant in the past.

Other planners espoused a multiculturalism approach. As a philosophy, multiculturalism

acknowledgestheracialandculturaldifferencesinasociety,andratherthanaimingtoassimilate

themintooneuniversaldominantculture,thesedifferencesarecultivatedasconstituentelementsof

anationalculture(Qadeer,1997:482;Bollens,2002:24).InCanada,theuniversalvaluesystem(s)

underlying planning and policy making are based on the histories and practices of Canada’s

culturallydominantchartercommunities,EnglishandFrench.

Planning policies and standards presumably are based on universalist criteria. Often

they are backed by historic practices and established professional conventions. Yet

they originate from social patterns and cultural values of the dominant communities,

namely, in Canada, the English or the French (Qadeer, 1997: 482)

.

Qadeer’s (1994: 195–196) discussion of zoning and site plan requirements for religious

buildings illustrated nicely how dominant values underpin what is often conveyed by

planners as a value-neutral or universal set of technical requirements. His example was

from a city in Ontario.

Conventionally, zoning and site plan requirements for religious uses are based on the

requirements of churches. Thus the establishment or building of a mosque turns into

a long drawn-out process of adapting planning by-laws and standards for churches to

mosques and other religious institutions. The minaret and domes of mosques are

architectural features that do not readily fit into existing codes. In one case, a minaret

had to be designated as a ‘clock tower’, though once built its function and integrity

were so obvious that the local council happily dispensed with the installation of a

mock clock.

As Bollens (2002: 37) recommended, rather than retreating into professional rigidity in

the face of the demands of multicultural urban communities, planners should confront

them through processes of social learning, namely, through ‘processes of social interaction

with cultural groups so that their values and visions are incorporated into city planning’.

And importantly, planning has the capacity to connect urban issues such as access to urban

services, housing, and the approval of development applications, to ‘root societal

problems’ (Bollens, 2002: 38) such as systemic and overt racism and cultural hegemony

(Thomas and Krishnarayan, 1994: 7).

Qadeer (1997: 481) described how ethnic minorities in Canadian cities are “finding

their ‘places’ in the planning system”, and the changes in planning practice that are

occurring in response to diversity. For Quadeer (1997: 485), the cultural and racial

diversity of citizens has three main effects:

First, it affects the rational–technical component; race and culture have become

significant analytical categories for assessing public needs and analyzing social

conditions.Second, planners must now be sensitive to the needs of individuals (and groups) in

new ways, largely in how they listen to clients and how they interpret and apply


regulations to them, particularly those in minority communities.Third, the scope and procedures of citizen involvement in the planning process have

to be modified to accommodate multicultural policies.

He (1997: 485) argued that it was on the third front that the planning process showed

the greatest evolution to coincide with the diversity of citizens. He suggested that the next

step was to increase the representation of minority groups on decision-making bodies and

noted that this means of accommodating multiculturalism was lagging behind the progress

being made toward increasing multicultural citizen participation and consultation

processes.

Despite this progress, and ironically, according to Qadeer, the participatory measures

designed to give citizens a voice in planning gave a convenient means for organised

citizen groups to resist the accommodation of different cultural preferences and needs.

“Public hearings on planning regulations have often been turned into the tools of

NIMBYism and ethno-racism” (Qadeer, 1997: 491). In his conclusions, Qadeer (1997:

492) stated that planning criteria and standards, despite halting moves forward to

accommodate diversity and pluralism, remained based on unitary conceptions of citizen

needs. Similarly, Thomas and Krishnarayan (1994: 14) argued that while many local

governments made statements in their policies and plans to cater to the specific ‘needs’

of black and ethnic minorities (in the UK), most of the time they did not translate into

commensurate action.

Qadeer (1994: 188), exemplifying where Aboriginal peoples fit within Canadian

theorisations of urban planning and multiculturalism, made only a cursory mention of the

fact that Aboriginal peoples were an exception to the rule that all Canadians are

immigrants or descended from immigrants. He also made a brief note of a special

Aboriginal housing program (presumably the Urban Native Housing Program) to address

‘historic inequities and biases’ in the housing market (Qadeer, 1994: 194). It would seem

that Qadeer (1994) recognised Aboriginal peoples as part of the multicultural and diverse

population of cities. He did not tackle the particular historic and political attributes of this

group, however. In particular, he did not address questions of Aboriginal rights and self-

government.

Planning theorists who have incorporated discussions of Aboriginal rights into the

planning literature have mostly done so in the context of reserve and rural Aboriginal

community planning and land management (e.g. Wolfe, 1989; Porter, 2004; Hibbard and

Lane, 2004). A major theme from Wolfe’s (1989) important work on planning in Canadian

Aboriginal communities (in the North and on reserves), for example, was the importance

placed on self-determination and the exercise of self-government over aspects of life

considered vital to development. While some of the general principles discussed in this

work apply to Aboriginal people in cities, envisioning self-government of the planning

process can be more complicated in the urban context where many different Aboriginal

peoples co-exist territorially within a highly multicultural and cosmopolitan society.

Mountjoy (1999: 314) pointed out that most Canadian municipalities want to make

meaningful contributions to the establishment of Aboriginal self-government, but that there

are several issues that complicate the degree to which municipalities are prepared to engage.

Among those are that fiscal capacity must be created for self-governed initiatives where they


occur, jurisdictional responsibilities must be clarified, and engaging in efforts toward self-

government cannot compromise the ability of municipalities to provide for all of its citizens

(Mountjoy, 1995: 313). The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (1993: 2, as cited in

Mountjoy, 1995: 314) has stated that “Canadian municipalities wish to make a constructive

and practical contribution to the establishment of meaningful Aboriginal self-government”.

Having said this, however, Mountjoy (1995: 319) noted that when the Federation of

Canadian Municipalities conducted a survey of strategies for providing services to

Aboriginal residents, only 4% reported developing targeted programs for Aboriginal

people, while 14% provided culturally sensitive programs, and 63% said that their key

strategies were to improve Aboriginal access to existing services (Labi, 1998, as cited in

Mountjoy, 1995: 319).

The most-utilized strategy for the majority of municipalities was delivering uniform

services to all residents—including Aboriginal residents.It appears many

municipalities assume that delivering the same services to both Aboriginal and

non-Aboriginal residents will meet everyone’s needs equally, even though this has

been shown not to be the case in many different policy areas (Mountjoy, 1995: 319).

Walker (2003) acknowledged the importance of planning processes that fostered the

expression of cultural difference in the public domain, but he argued that the Aboriginal

situation in Canada (and similarly in other settler nations) required a more particular

specification than the work of scholars like Qadeer (1994, 1997) and Sandercock (1998)

provided. According to Walker (2003: 102), “Aboriginal peoples in Canadian cities do not

simply comprise another ethnic group contending for cultural preservation if and when it

does not conflict with mainstream institutions”. Citing the work of Kymlicka (1998), he

stated that Aboriginal peoples collectively comprise a national minority group that had the

Canadian state imposed upon it. And unlike other ethnic minority groups in Canada,

Aboriginal peoples were living in self-determining societies with distinct societal cultures

prior to the Canadian idea (Kymlicka, 1998). This, like the right-based rationales provided

by authors studying the rural and reserve Aboriginal planning situation (e.g. Wolfe, 1989;

Porter, 2004; Hibbard and Lane, 2004), provided an impetus for urban planners to develop

ways of incorporating the rights of self-determination and self-government into planning

practice.

In this context, participatory and collaborative planning approaches that bring together

the diversity of groups and ‘publics’ in multicultural urban society may not be effective for

all issues having to do with urban Aboriginal people. As Healey (2004: 6) noted, the

introduction of collaborative planning processes to a community often occurs without

attention to local institutional histories and the competing interests that may be entrenched

there. Indeed the concepts of planning for a diverse public(s) through collaborative

processes present problems when they do not account for Aboriginal circumstances and

rights. As Walker (2003) argued, it is insufficient for urban planners to subsume

Aboriginal peoples within the broader rubric of planning for diversity and multi-

culturalism without an affirmation of the unique rights and circumstances of this

population group. Porter (2004: 104–105) captured the disjunction between progressive

democratic and inclusive planning principles and the goal of entrenching Aboriginal rights


in planning processes very well when she reflected on her own fieldwork with indigenous

people in Australia and the research questions to which she was pursuing answers.

The issue was about rights and the material benefits that flow to indigenous nations

when those rights are properly recognized, not just by planners doing their daily

thing, but in the wider Australian body politic. No amount of inclusive, radical or

democratic planning practice will shift the effects of (post)colonial structures and

relations of power of Indigenous nations without a fundamental recognition of rights

(Porter, 2004: 104–105).

State-directed planning that includes Aboriginal interests as one among many other

socio-cultural groups fails to recognise the desire for self-determination that has been hard

fought for since colonial contact, but articulated with new vigour in the past few decades in

settler societies (Sandercock, 2004b: 119; Walker, 2004). Aboriginal people’s goals are

often self-government in some policy areas rather than representation on mainstream

decision-making bodies. Indeed, as Healey (2004: 7) argued, it is not surprising that

indigenous communities often mobilise the power to resist incorporation in mainstream

processes and values rather than ‘play along’ with planners, seeing resistance as a better

strategy for pursuing recognition of indigenous views. Urban Aboriginal populations,

then, create particular challenges, and opportunities, for contemporary planning

frameworks.

1.2. Aboriginal people and marginality in Canadian cities

The poverty of Aboriginal people also presents challenges. Part of this challenge

derives from the depth and extent of urban Aboriginal poverty. Part comes from the

necessity of understanding the particular nature of this poverty in the context of the

characteristics of Aboriginal people’s everyday lives and the nature of contemporary

urban economies and societies. There are some important questions to be raised about the

applicability to urban Aboriginal people of explanations of poverty and marginalisation

drawn from other countries and from other time periods.

The concept of marginality has a long history in research on migrants to urban areas.

Early work by University of Chicago sociologists viewed marginality as the product of

urbanization. Subsequent analyses equated marginality with poverty and the resulting

‘cultures’ that separated poor populations from the urban mainstream. In the last two

decades, concepts of marginality have been reworked to frame the emergence of what some

theorists call the ‘new’ poverty in contemporary cities. Clearly explanations of marginality

were created to describe the situation of particular groups—turn of the century immigrants,

Latino migrants, inner city black populations. Because these explanations are often applied

to urban Aboriginal people, it is important to analyse the degree to which they are relevant.

In the 1920s and 1930s, University of Chicago theorists introduced the idea of

marginality to describe immigrant responses to life in large, American, industrial cities.

Burgess (1925: 53) asked “In what way are individuals incorporated into the life of a city?”

He suggested that adaptation to the city required a “reorganization of attitudes

and conduct” (Burgess, 1925: 54) and that this reorganization involved a period of

preliminary disorganization. Park (1928) equated marginality with migration, suggesting


that moral dichotomy and conflict were characteristics of immigrants to urban areas during

the period when “old habits are being discarded and new ones not yet formed”. According

to Park, migration created the ‘marginal man’ who lived in two worlds and did not truly

belong to either one. In his classic essay, Louis Wirth identified the size, density and

heterogeneity of cities as the factors leading to the social isolation associated with urban

life. For Wirth (1938: 160) the distinctive features of urban life included the “substitution

of secondary for primary contacts, the weakening of bonds of kinship, and the declining

social significance of the family, the disappearance of neighbourhood, and the

undermining of the traditional basics of social solidarity”. For Chicago School

sociologists, then, marginality was a condition associated with urbanization, characterized

by isolation from traditional bonds of culture, community and family.

These ideas about urban marginality were challenged by a variety of studies that

attempted to show that urbanization was not necessarily accompanied by isolation, and

that many immigrants created communities and strong social and cultural ties within large

industrial centres (e.g. Gans, 1962). American anthropologist Lewis (1952: 1966)

challenged stereotypes of urbanization and migrant marginality, and shifted the focus of

the marginalization paradigm from urbanization and immigration to poverty. Lewis (1966:

9) developed the idea of a culture of poverty that described “in positive terms a subculture

of Western society with its own structure and rationale, a way of life handed on from

generation to generation along family lines”. He suggested that the poor, by virtue of their

exclusion from the mainstream of the societies in which they live, adapted by developing a

way of life that was qualitatively different from that of the middle-class societies in which

they lived. In creating responses to their exclusion from the major institutions of the larger

society, poor populations created cultures that transmitted marginalization to subsequent

generations.

Lewis’s formulation of marginality was influential in the formulation of public policy

in the United States, but conservative forces focussed on the social pathologies linked to a

culture of poverty, rather than on the socioeconomic circumstances that contributed to

these behavioural responses. As Jackson (1989: 31) noted, “Much of the ‘culture of

poverty’ literature can, in fact, be read as an instance of the reactionary habit of ‘blaming

the victim’ for problems which are not of their own making and which they have little

power to alter”. A surging black nationalist movement shifted the emphasis in academic

scholarship to the achievements and resiliency of ghetto. The result, argued Wilson (1996:

173–174) was that research on the causes of urban poverty and the social dislocations of

the inner city were largely ignored.

After a long period of relative silence, the concept of marginality is being revisited in

academic work in an attempt to explore persistent poverty in first world cities. Terms such

as ‘the underclass’, the ‘new poverty’, and the ‘new marginality’, are used in reference to

the chronic poor in capitalist countries, particularly the black ghettos of US inner cities and

the slums of European urban areas. Wacquant (1996, 1997, 1999, 2001) developed this

concept most fully, highlighting “new forms of inequality and marginality [that] have

arisen and are spreading throughout the advanced societies of the capitalist West”.

Wacquant (1999: 1640) argued that, while poverty in the Western cities used to be

“cyclical, embedded in working-class communities, geographically diffuse and considered

remediable by means of further market expansion” it is now increasingly long-term,


disconnected from macroeconomic trends, and linked to neighbourhoods that are isolated

from the urban mainstream. He linked the new marginality to four structural factors: post-

industrial economies that increased inequality even in the context of economic prosperity;

the elimination of low-skill jobs and degradation of conditions of employment; the

retrenchment of the welfare state; and the concentration of poverty.

While her focus was not specifically on urban marginality, Iris Marion Young’s

definition of marginalization is useful for this research. Young defined marginalization as

one the five ‘faces of oppression’ experienced by different groups in society. According to

Young (1990: 53), marginalization is experienced when “a whole category of people is

expelled from useful participation in social live and thus potentially subjected to severe

material deprivation”. While Young emphasised exclusion from labour markets with its

resulting material deprivation, she noted that this did not comprise all of what

marginalization entailed. Marginalization also meant exclusion from “most of our

society’s productive and recognized activities [which] take place in contexts of organized

social cooperation” (1990: 53). Marginalization, then, also entailed exclusion from

community social processes and institutions.

These elements of marginalization—exclusion from the labour market, poverty, and

social exclusion—were also emphasised by researchers writing about the characteristics of

contemporary urban marginality. Wacquant’s (1996, 1997, 1999, 2001) analysis described

new structures of employment that led to exclusion from labour markets and the

concentration of poverty. Building on writing by theorists such as Wilson (1987), who

argued that the effects of concentrated poverty were exacerbated by isolation from the

public institutions of mainstream society and the movement out of these areas by middle

class residents, Wacquant argued that the result was the weakening of territorially based

communal bonds. The following chapters will explore social and political exclusion, spatial

concentration, and inequality in the labour force. One of the elements of Wacquant’s (1999:

1644–1645) approach to urban marginality that is particularly useful for this research is his

insistence that ‘regimes of marginality’ (composed of institutional ensembles that connect

economy, state, place and society), differ and have varying histories. In other words, the

particular mechanisms of exclusion operating in US cities are not exactly reproduced or

working in the same way or to the same extent in other North American or European cities.

This means that facets of marginalization need to be explored, empirically, for different

cities, and for different population groups. An important question in this research will be the

extent to which aspects of marginalisation documented for minority groups in US cities

applied to urban Aboriginal people, and the extent to which the circumstances of urban

Aboriginal people vary in different urban areas in Canada.

1.3. Definitions and measurement

The research in this volume relies primarily on aggregates of the urban Aboriginal

populations. However, it is important to recognize at the outset that this population is

heterogeneous in terms of history, legal rights, socio-economic status and cultural identity.

Complicating the issue, Census definitions of Aboriginal people and the way Aboriginal

people have responded to Census questions have changed over the years. These issues are

briefly addressed to provide a context for subsequent analysis.


1.3.1. Legal rights

Although the Canadian Constitution Act (1982) defined Aboriginal people to include

the Indian, Metis and Inuit people, Aboriginal people living in Canadian cities are

subjected to a complicated legal regime. Table 1 shows the proportion of the Aboriginal

population in large Canadian cities who identified as either North American Indian or

Metis. Fig. 1 maps these cities. Inuit are omitted because they represent a very small

proportion of these urban areas. This table shows that urban areas vary substantially in

terms of this aspect of the composition of Aboriginal populations. Metis people comprise a

much larger proportion of urban Aboriginal populations in prairie cities (Winnipeg,

Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary) than in large cities elsewhere in Canada.

Many people identified in the Census and the Constitution as ‘Indian’ prefer the term

‘First Nations’ because of the colonial associations with the term ‘Indian’. First Nations

people include both individuals who are registered under the Indian Act (Registered or

Status Indians), and individuals who identify as First Nations people, but who do not have

the rights, benefits or status associated with registration. The federal government has

maintained that it is responsible only for Registered Indians, and that these responsibilities

are limited to reserve borders (Morse, 1989). However, a few federally funded services are

available to Registered Indians generally, no matter where they live. The most notable of

these are non-insured health benefits and post-secondary educational assistance. The federal

government has regarded non-registered Indians and Metis as a provincial responsibility.

These categories are further complicated by differences between registration status and

band membership. Under Bill C-31, passed in 1985, registration and band membership

were separated. After Bill C-31, First Nations bands were given the opportunity to draw up

and adopt codes governing membership, while registration continues to be governed

Table 1

Cultural and legal composition of the Aboriginal identity population in census metropolitan areas

Percent by Aboriginal group, 2001 Aboriginal population by First Nation

of origin, 1991a

North American

Indian

Metis % in largest First

Nation

Name of First

Nation

Halifax 72.6 22.7 79.0 Mi’kmaq

Montreal 61.9 33.9 33.9 Mohawk

Ottawa-Hull 60.9 35.4 29.0 Algonquin

Toronto 72.1 25.7 55.0 Ojibwa

Thunder Bay 77.2 22.5 81.0 Ojibwa

Winnipeg 43.2 56.4 70.0 Ojibwa

Regina 61.2 38.4 67.3 Cree

Saskatoon 57.9 41.5 n.a. n.a.

Calgary 50.3 48.5 26.2 Siksika

Edmonton 47.0 51.8 63.0 Cree

Vancouver 64.6 34.6 13.7 Halkomelem

Sources: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo43b.htm, accessed January 2003; 1991 Census and Aboriginal

Peoples Survey, 1991 Statistics Canada Catalogue #94-327; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996:

592–597).a These data are not available for 2001.

Fig. 1. Canadian metropolitan areas with large Aboriginal populations (see Table1). Source: Oksana Starchenko,

Geography, University of Saskatchewan, 2004.


according to Indian Act regulations. Band membership involves a variety of rights and

privileges with respect to an individual’s band of origin, including rights of residency on

the reserve. Some urban Aboriginal people are registered, but are not band members, while

some are band members, but are not registered.

This complex amalgam of legal categories creates inequalities among urban Aboriginal

people. Registered Indians living on reserves have access to federally funded programs not

available to urban Indians. Registered Indians in urban areas have access to some federally

funded programs that other Aboriginal people do not have. Because the federal government

has negotiated agreements only with First Nations on reserves, only band members have

opportunities to participate in self-government arrangements through their bands of origin.

These opportunities are denied to Aboriginal people who do not have band membership.

Although some urban programs have been established through federal, provincial, and

municipal funding, these initiatives are unevenly distributed, with short-term and often

limited funding. Clearly, these issues are beyond the scope of municipal planning

interventions. However, they demonstrate the complexities facing municipal initiatives.

1.3.2. Cultural diversity

Many Aboriginal peoples identify with their cultural community of origin rather with

the legal categories established by the Canadian state. The importance of cultural origins

adds another layer of complexity to considerations about appropriate organizations and

initiatives involving Aboriginal people in urban areas. Culturally appropriate ceremonies

and programs are important for many Aboriginal people in urban areas. For example,

a respondent in Kathi Wilson’s interviews in Toronto highlighted the difficulty of


accessing ceremonies that reflect the cultural values and beliefs of individual First Nations

cultures.

[T]here are all three (Cree, Mohawk and Ojibway) different nations. Now we all

believe in the Creator and we all believe in the medicine wheel and each one is a

little different and each one has a different slant on it. But we are all clumped

together here in one pot and so.As well we have MicMac and we have Bella Coola.

We have Salish We have all the other.Inuit. We have Plains Cree. We have

Northern Cree. We have Algonquin. We have.pick one and they are all here in one

place and it is difficult.

Not politically.um, not so much with the politicians, but politically within all of

the different nations all coming together.and we can’t always give a ceremony

open to the immediate world. It can’t always be Ojibway. Sometimes it has to be

Mohawk and sometimes it has to be MicMac and sometimes it has to.It depends on

who is in the circle and so you have to respect all the other nations and where they

come from too. Whereas back on the reserve everything is Ojibway and visitors to

the reserve will adapt to our way. (Wilson, 2000: 245–246)

Many interveners to the Public Hearings of the 1992–1996 Royal Commission on

Aboriginal peoples expressed the importance of culturally specific initiatives for urban

Aboriginal people. At the same time, the complexity of urban Aboriginal populations

makes this a challenge in many cities. Table 1 shows the proportion of the Aboriginal

population that belonged to the largest First Nations population in particular cities in 1991.

In some cities, a large majority of the population came from a single nation of origin. In

others, the population was extremely complex. In Vancouver, for example, the largest

nation contained less than 15% of the total Aboriginal population, and the census indicated

that there were more than 35 other nations represented in that city. In this context, some

participants in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) round table on urban

issues suggested that the urban Aboriginal population was too diverse to make separate

services practical (1993: 17).

1.3.3. Census data for urban Aboriginal populations

Published Census data on urban Aboriginal people are only available beginning in

1951. Most of the data on ethnic and cultural origins in Canada rely on a question that asks

individuals about their ancestry. The wording of this question and instructions to

enumerators on its administration has changed over the years (Goldmann and Siggner,

1995). In earlier decades only patrilineal ancestry was recorded, and multiple ancestries

were not captured until 1981. Beginning in 1991, Aboriginal people were also counted

through a question that asked individuals if they identified with an Aboriginal group—

North American Indian, Metis or Inuit. The identity data are not available at the census

tract level in 1991, which makes it difficult to document changes in the urban Aboriginal

population over time, and in that way, to evaluate whether these populations are

increasingly marginalised over time.

There is another strategy for assessing change over time. In 1981, the census ethnic

origin question included a Native People column that allowed respondents to check the

categories ‘Inuit’, ‘Status or registered Indian’, ‘Non-Status Indian’, or ‘Metis’. Rules of


descent were not specified, and while multiple responses were neither encouraged nor

discouraged, they were accepted as valid. Using an intercensal cohort survival method,

Kerr et al. (1996) found that, with the exception of the non-status Indian population, the

populations identified by the 1981 Native Peoples census question and the 1991 question

on Aboriginal identity appeared to be sufficiently similar to support a comparison of some

characteristics. They noted that:

The population reporting Aboriginal origins in 1981 did so without intensive

prompting and may comprise that subset of individuals of Aboriginal biological

descent who closely identify with their Aboriginal heritage and/or culture. Although

based on ethnic origin criteria, the concept of Aboriginal associated with the 1981

Census appears to be similar to the concept of Aboriginal identity (1996: 3).

Because non-status Indians represent a minority of the Aboriginal population, this

paper compares the results of the 1981 ethnic origin question to results from the 2001

Aboriginal identity question, in order to address questions of change over time.

At the same time, it is important to recognise that comparability is not only affected by

the wording of Census questions. Between 1981 and 2001, the Aboriginal population grew

at a rate that cannot be explained only by population measures such as fertility, mortality

and migration (Guimond, 2003). Part of the increase was the result of individuals who did

not identify as Aboriginal in previous Census years, now choosing to do so. There is some

evidence that individuals who are in higher socio-economic status groups are

disproportionately represented among individuals newly identifying as Aboriginal in the

census (Siggner and Hagey, 2003). Where there are comparisons between urban

Aboriginal conditions in 1981 and 2001, the analysis in this paper attempts to account for

inaccuracies created by changes in self-identification.

1.4. Conclusion

Aboriginal people live in urban areas in many settler societies. Addressing indigeneity

in urban areas creates unique challenges and opportunities. At the same time, although

many Aboriginal people experience success in cities, they are disproportionately found in

the socially and economically marginalised population. An important question for

planners and urban theorists has to do with the extent to which models of marginalisation

describe non-Aboriginal groups apply to Aboriginal populations. The following chapters

attempt to address these two main issues—indigeneity and marginalisation.

While indigeneity and marginalisation represent the two main theoretical lenses for this

paper, there are two other themes that thread through the analysis. One has to do with the

appropriate scale of responses, for example city or Aboriginal traditional territory,

neighbourhood or city. The role of scale in creating identity, meaning, and response has

featured in a number of studies by geographers recently, and it is important in work on

urban Aboriginal populations. A second theme has to do with the diversity of cities. The

situation of urban Aboriginal people and the processes creating particular outcomes vary

considerably between cities. This paper focuses primarily on large cities because

published data are not available for smaller cities. It is likely that there are differences


between larger and smaller cities, as well. These themes emerge in all of the chapters that

follow.

Chapter 1 has provided a framework for the analysis that follows by summarising the

perspectives of marginality and indigeneity, and the challenges they present for planning.

Chapter 2 explores the significance of urbanisation and migration patterns for

understanding contemporary urban Aboriginal realities. In Chapter 3, the paper addresses

the economic and labour force characteristics of urban Aboriginal people and initiatives

that have attempted to improve urban Aboriginal employment. Settlement patterns are the

focus of Chapter 4, which explores whether Aboriginal people are forming ghettos in

urban areas and the implications of Aboriginal settlements. Chapter 5 describes several

measures of Aboriginal community in the city, and the characteristics of urban Aboriginal

institutions. The concluding Chapter (6) summarises the implications of the analysis for

frameworks of indigeneity and marginality, and their implications for planning for and

with Aboriginal people in cities.


CHAPTER 2

Aboriginal people in cities: urban or not?

Part of the population history of western countries is the movement, national and

international, of people away from farms, rural hamlets and villages and their

increasing concentration in cities. The characteristics and structure of housing markets

and employment opportunities in cities affect migrant’s settlement patterns and

employment characteristics as do the characteristics of migrants themselves (Yancey et

al., 1976; Bodnar, 1985). In his study of Native Americans in Chicago between 1945

and 1975, LaGrand (2002: 98–99) outlined some of the differences between the cities

faced by mid-century Native American migrants and earlier immigrant groups. He

indicated that mid-century migrants had more difficulty clustering in particular

occupations or neighbourhoods because businesses had moved to suburban areas, and

because “many other ethnic groups [had] carved out their own residential and economic

niches”. According to LaGrand:

This was the Chicago to which Indian people moved and adjusted during the 1950s.

Unlike the city’s earlier migrants, they lacked the numbers to control a

neighborhood or industry. They faced the challenge of adjusting to a decentralized,

dispersed metropolitan region and to an increasingly post-industrial economy.

Moreover, many Native Americans lacked the education and experience that would

enable them to compete in the changing economy.

The timing of Aboriginal urbanisation in Canada is probably an important

component of their contemporary socio-economic situation in the city. However,

understanding Aboriginal urbanisation patterns also requires that we recognise the

dispossession underlying contemporary migration patterns, pay attention to the cultural

significance of return migration, and recognise different patterns for different cities and

different segments of the Aboriginal population. The following begins with a

description of Aboriginal urbanisation, defined as the changing proportion of

Aboriginal people living in urban areas. Then the discussion addresses the historical

context of urbanisation patterns and the socio-economic situation of many migrants.

The final two sections describe patterns of migration and differences between

populations groups within the urban Aboriginal population. Some implications are

discussed by way of conclusion.

2.1. Patterns of Aboriginal urbanisation

Like other population groups in western countries, Aboriginal people have become

more urban in terms of settlement patterns. However, increases in the proportion of the

Aboriginal population living in urban areas occurred much later in the Aboriginal than

in the total Canadian population. In 1901, only 5.1% of Aboriginal people lived in

urban areas, and that percentage had only increased to 6.7% by 1951 (Kalbach, 1987:

102). Urbanisation began to increase in 1950 and climbed sharply in the 1970s

Fig. 2. Sources: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo43b.htm. Accessed January 2003, 1991 Census and

Aboriginal Peoples Survey, 1991 Statistics Canada Catalogue #94-327,Kalbach, 1987; Peters, 2002.


and 1980s (Fig. 2). In 2001, almost half of Canada’s Aboriginal people lived in urban

areas.4

The reasons behind these population movements are complex. Some authors have

suggested that the experiences of First Nations and Metis veterans made them more

prepared to participate in urban economy and society (Dosman, 1972). Other factors were

also important. While issues concerning Aboriginal people were very much in the public

eye with the signing of prairie Treaties in the late 1800s, they seemed to fade in importance

after the turn of the century (Tobias, 1983). As public interest in Aboriginal issues revived

in the mid-1900s, federal and provincial governments commissioned an array of studies

into the conditions of Aboriginal people (Hawthorn, 1958: 84; Lagasse, 1958; Davis,

1965: 519; Hawthorn, 1966–1967). An over-riding theme in many of these studies was the

depressed social and economic conditions of reserves and rural Metis settlements. The

extension of provincial standards in health, social assistance and education to reserves and

rural areas supported population growth, increased contact with urban society and

generated higher expectations. As the poor conditions in reserves and rural Metis

communities came to public attention, policy-makers looked to urbanisation for at least a

partial solution. The Department of Indian Affairs organised a relocation program

designed to assist First Nations to move to urban areas (Peters, 2002). Even without public

policy intervention, rapid population growth on reserves and rural Metis communities

made out-migration seem inevitable.

Like Native Americans, the urbanisation of Aboriginal people in Canada occurred at

a time when urban economies increasingly required education and skill levels that

relatively few Aboriginal people possessed. Some contemporary research suggests that

conditions in Aboriginal communities continue to recreate disadvantages for migrants

4 While these statistics demonstrate a trend, it is important to remember that the geographies over which the

census was taken and the definitions of Aboriginal have varied over the years (Goldmann and Siggner, 1995: 40,

43).

Table 2

Aboriginal people in census metropolitan areas, 1951–2001

1951 1961 1971a 1981 1991b 2001 Percent change,

1951–2001c

Halifax – – – – 1185 3525 197.5

Montreal 296 507 3215 14 450 6775d 11 275 3709.1

Ottawa-Hull – – – 4370 6915 13 695 213.4

Toronto 805 1196 2990 13 495 14 205 20 595 2458.4

Winnipeg 210 1082 4940 16 575 35 150 55 970 26 552.4

Regina 160 539 2860 6575 11 020 15 790 9768.8

Saskatoon 48 207 1070 4350 11 920 20 455 42 514.6

Calgary 62 335 2265 7310 14 075 22 110 35 561.3

Edmonton 616 995 4260 13 750 29 235 41 295 6603.7

Vancouver 239 530 3000 16 080 25 030 37 265 15 492.1

a The 1971 data do not include the Inuit.b In 1991 and 2001, these statistics refer to individuals who identified with an Aboriginal group. Counts for

previous years refer to individuals with Aboriginal ancestry. Because of changes in the questions on which these

counts are based, and changes in definition and collection methods, statistics are not strictly comparable between

years before 1991.c The percent of change in the size of urban Aboriginal populations is presented for heuristic purposes only. The

definition of Aboriginal was different in 1951 than in 2001.d Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver had, within their boundaries, reserves that were incompletely enumerated

in either 1991 or 2001 or both, affecting the counts for those years and cities.


to cities (Levitte, 2003: 58–70). Urbanisation trends are reflected in Aboriginal

population numbers in Canada’s major metropolitan centres (Table 2). While the data

for different years are not directly comparable because of changes in definitions of

‘Aboriginal’ and shifts in metropolitan boundaries, they nevertheless illustrate the rapid

increase in urban Aboriginal populations after 1951. Taken together, these statistics

seem to suggest that the settlement patterns that we find in the rest of Canada apply to

Aboriginal people—that they are leaving rural areas and moving to cities, and

becoming an urban people.

2.2. Dispossession

A first step in understanding Aboriginal urbanization is recognizing the historical

realities that created these patterns. Most cities in contemporary Canada have grown in

areas where there were, initially, Aboriginal settlements. A substantial tradition of

research on white settler attitudes documented their views of First Nations and other

indigenous peoples as primitive, backward, and often savage (Berkhoffer, 1979; Goldie,

1989; Jackson, 1992; Jacobs, 1996; Peters, 1996; Anderson, 1998). These ideas were

translated into a variety of mechanisms through which Aboriginal peoples were kept

separate from urban places. While there is no comprehensive description of these

strategies, there are some examples that demonstrate how they were played out.

The creation of reserves—where most First Nations peoples in the populated southern

parts of Canada were eventually settled—was one of the spatial manifestations of the

labeling of Aboriginal peoples. As Harris (2002: 265, 268) noted with respect to British


Columbia: “The allocation of reserves.defined two primal spaces, one for Native people

and the other for virtually everyone else” based on a “racialized juxtaposition of

civilization and savagery”. Reserves became “Native space” and the lands in between

were ‘emptied’ for settlement, materially and conceptually (Tobias, 1983; Brealey, 1995).

These mappings of space and identity came to mean that urban places were increasingly

seen as places where indigenous peoples were ‘out of place’ (Hamer, 1990; Peters, 2002).

Various levels of government, ranging from individual Indian agents, to departments,

to the courts and houses of parliament, worked to maintain the separation of Aboriginal

and urban space. For example, Harris (1992) documented the role of the private property

regime and its agents of enforcement in confining First Nations people to reserves along

the Lower Mainland of what is now Vancouver, and in destroying their villages. In 1881,

the Papaschase Reserve across the river from the growing city of Edmonton in Alberta,

was surrendered under questionable circumstances and residents moved to other reserves

(Raby, 1973: 39–40; Leonard, 2002). On the prairies, Indian Affairs officials at various

levels invented a pass system, introduced after 1885, which required First Nations

individuals to obtain permission from the Indian agent before they left their reserves. Part

of the purpose of this system was to keep First Nations people away from emerging prairie

towns (Barron, 1988: 30). In Saskatchewan, town officials worked together with Indian

Affairs representatives to move reserve boundaries away from the borders of planned or

expanding towns (Raby, 1973: 41–42). In 1911, the Government of Canada passed

legislation to remove reserves when growing towns came close because “such a situation,

apart altogether from its accompanying irritation, is fraught with great danger to the

Indians” (Department of Indian Affairs, 1911: xxi).

There is relatively little documentation about urban areas and Metis people. However,

the available research suggests that Metis people were also removed from urban space.

Excluded from property ownership through a variety of mechanisms, Metis people settled

on road allowances outside the boundaries of urban areas (Campbell, 1973). While the

extent of fringe settlement is not known, a number of authors documented the existence of

‘shantytowns’ at the edges of urban areas (Lagasse, 1958; Davis, 1965).

The migration of Aboriginal people to urban areas began to increase in mid-century,

and this movement challenged governments to revisit the scale at which services were

provided. In the early 1950s, the federal government developed its position that federal

constitutional responsibility was limited to registered First Nations people only on

reserves and that all Aboriginal people (including Metis) living off the reserve become the

responsibility of the provinces for the purpose of most social services. Morse (1989: 71)

explained the federal government’s position.

The federal government.believed that its obligations were generally limited to

reserve borders. Any federal activities beyond these territorial limits were defined as

ex gratia and restricted to band members still residing on reserve and those

temporarily absent or in the process of changing the domicile. Thus, all expenditures

and responsibilities for off-reserve residents (other than for specified time periods, or

in the context of specific programs such as post-secondary education, or those with

physical or mental handicaps requiring specialized assistance) were left to the

provinces.


Despite more than five decades of Aboriginal urbanisation, the federal government still

holds to this position. A relationship with the federal government is an important part of

the definition of indigeneity in Canada. This organisation of service and program

administration suggests that authentic Aboriginal identities are found only on reserves.

Clearly, the federal government contributes to programs and services for Aboriginal

people in urban areas (Hanselmann, 2001), but Aboriginal peoples are defined as primarily

as citizens of the province, and programs to address their needs are framed in terms of

socio-economic marginality, not in terms of Aboriginal rights and status.

Urbanisation, defined in terms of the changing proportion of Aboriginal people living in

urban areas, is occurring in the context of the historic removal of Aboriginal people from

emerging urban areas, and colonial administration that created them as impoverished,

under-educated and under-employed. Remembering this history is not just a nod to

political correctness. It reminds us that urban Aboriginal people do not arrive in cities like

other migrants, national or international. Clearly, Aboriginal people face some similar

challenges and create some similar opportunities. However, unlike other migrants, many

Aboriginal people are travelling within their traditional territories. Many have

expectations that their Aboriginal rights and identities will make a difference to the

ways that they structure and live their lives in urban areas.

2.3. Return migration, or ‘churn’

The increasing size of urban Aboriginal populations and the growing proportion of the

Aboriginal population living in cities suggest that the trend is toward the depopulation of

reserves and rural areas as Aboriginal people move to urban areas. However, analyses of

migration patterns suggest that this is not what is happening. The migration picture is

complicated.5 Table 3 shows the proportion of all migrants (people who lived in a different

census subdivision on census day than they had lived 5 years earlier) by origins and

destinations. Since 1986, the proportion of Aboriginal people moving from urban areas to

reserves and rural communities has been larger than the proportion moving from reserves

and rural communities to urban areas.

Table 4 shows the implication of these patterns for net migration rates (differences

between in and out migration) for urban areas and reserves and rural areas. The table

shows that cities gained Aboriginal migrants between 1986 and 1991, lost migrants

between 1991 and 1996, and had a small net gain between 1996 and 2001. Cities lost

migrants for the first two census periods, and only gained slightly between 1996 and 2001.

Reserves and rural areas mirror these patterns.

It appears that the pattern of migration for contemporary Aboriginal people is not one of

the depletion of reserves and rural areas by movement to urban areas. Migration from

reserves and rural areas to cities does not appear to be the main factor contributing to

growth in urban Aboriginal populations. In fact, the increasing rate of Aboriginal

5 The growth of urban Aboriginal populations can result from migration, the difference between fertility and

mortality, changes in definitions or geographic area, or changes in patterns of self-identification. These factors

vary for different cities. Moreover, patterns vary for large and small cities, reserves and rural areas. These data are

based on aggregates.

Table 3

Origin-destination flows, Aboriginal migrants, identity population, 1986–1996

1986–1991 1991–1996 1996–2001

Urban-reserve/rural 23.1 26.4 23.7

Reserve/rural–urban 20.6 18.6 21.1

Urban–urban 44.9 43.5 43.1

Reserve/rural-reserve/rural 11.5 11.4 12.1

Total migrants 112 765 149 720 174 685

Source: Author’s calculations, from Clatworthy (1994), Norris et al. (2002b)a and Norris and Clatworthy (2003).


urbanisation appears to be related to changing patterns of self-identification, which seems

to have affected urban Aboriginal populations more than rural or reserve populations

(Guimond, 2003). These patterns suggest that there may be different dynamics of

urbanisation operating for Aboriginal people than for other urbanising western

populations.

Strong patterns of movement back and forth between urban areas and reserves/rural

areas emphasise the continuing importance of these communities for urban Aboriginal

residents. Mary Jane Norris has called this back and forth movement ‘churn’ (Norris and

Clatworthy, 2003). This movement is not very well understood. We do not know, for

example, whether a small sub-group of the population is responsible for most of the

movement back and forth, or whether it is characteristic of the urban Aboriginal

population generally. However, a recent study of recent Aboriginal migrants to Winnipeg

found that a substantial number had moved out of Winnipeg and back again within

6 months period (Distasio, 2004).

The continued importance of reserves and rural areas, and the patterns of back and forth

movement contradict scholar’s earlier expectations about Aboriginal urbanisation and

their interpretation of the move into urban areas. Early academic analyses of Aboriginal

urbanisation demonstrate an expectation that Aboriginal migrants to cities would

eventually become permanent urban dwellers. Frideres (1974, 1983), summarising this

body of work, recognised that many Aboriginal migrants continued to move back and forth

between urban and rural areas. However, he described the transition to urban life as taking

place in a series of stages—entering the city, becoming a client of a service organisation,

‘graduating’ from the service organisation, and ‘final’ placement in the city (Frideres,

1983: 199). Between each stage, Aboriginal migrants might return to the reserve or rural

Metis community. When Aboriginal migrants made the decision to remain in urban areas,

Table 4

Net migration flows, Aboriginal identity populations, 1986–2001

1986–1991 1991–1996 1996–2001

Urban CMA K225 K11 900 C320

Reserve/rural C225 C11 900 K320

Source: Author’s calculations, from Clatworthy (1996), Norris et al. (2002) and Statistics Canada (2003).a Clatworthy and Norris use slightly different definitions of migrant, but these differences should not affect the

basic dimensions of the general migration patterns shown here.


though, the decision was interpreted as a decision to integrate into mainstream society

(Peters, 2002).

While some migrants may return to rural and reserve communities because they have

difficulty with urban life, it seems clear that a significant portion of churn occurs because

reserve and rural areas of origin are still important to many urban Aboriginal migrants.

Wilson’s (2000) interviews with Anishinabek from Manitoulin Island, living in Sudbury,

Toronto, and Hamilton, found that home reserves and tribal territories remained important

for individual’s cultural identities. As a result, many visited their reserves of origin, or

moved back for periods of time. Returning home provided Anishinabek with a physical

connection to the land that they could not always experience in cities. As McCaskill

(1981: 89) argued, First Nations peoples “often exhibit a dual-orientation pattern of urban

accommodation, exploiting the city for economic purposes while at the same time looking

to the reserves in terms of ideology, cultural identity, and social ties”. Weaver (2001: 245)

documented a similar strategy employed by the Navajo, who, she argued, when ‘outside

their traditional territory.experience an imbalance that can only be corrected by

returning to their home communities for ceremonies’. Similarly, while Anishinabek were

able to practice aspect of their culture in urban areas, their reserves remain an important

source of cultural identities and cultural practices.

Analyses of the reasons for migration often emphasize ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors that

draw Aboriginal people from one location to another. While cities have attracted

Aboriginal migrants because they provide more services and greater educational and

employment opportunities, they also represent environments in which Aboriginal people

experience racism, problems finding housing, and difficulty connecting with cultural

communities. Reserves and rural areas may provide fewer services and economic

opportunities, and they may represent difficult social and political situations for some

people, but they provide contact with culture and community that cities may lack. Also,

housing may be less difficult for some migrants to obtain on reserves (Hawthorn, 1966;

Lurie, 1967; Atwell, 1969; Stanbury, 1975; Ellis et al., 1978; Maidman, 1981; McCaskill,

1981; Lithman, 1984; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996).

A push/pull type of analysis suggests that if the factors pushing migrants from a

particular location can be addressed, mobility rates can be lowered. Clearly, it is desirable

to provide better housing, reduce unemployment and decrease racism. However, these

initiatives may not eliminate relatively high levels of movement between cities or between

urban and rural areas. Studies on migration internationally suggest that increasingly

migrants are maintaining connections with both areas of origin and destination through

political and economic ties and movement back and forth (Portes, 1999). These

connections are an important part of cultural identities. Many Aboriginal people

emphasize ties to the land as a continuing element of their cultural identity, and migration

may be one reflection of these ties (Dirlik, 1996; Todd, 2000/2001). Moreover, migration

back to rural and reserve communities may represent, not a failure to adjust to city life, as

early research on Aboriginal urbanisation suggests (Frideres, 1974), but an attempt to

maintain vital and purposeful community relationships. In this context, circulation

between urban areas and reserves and rural communities may remain a significant

component of migration patterns.

Table 5

Metis population by category of community, Manitoba, 1956

Fringe of reserves (%) 12.3

Fringe of white settlements (%) 10.8

Predominantly Metis communities (%) 25.5

Predominantly white communities (%) 44.4

Communities along northern railway lines (%) 6.6

Not accessible by roads (%)

Other (%) 0.3

Total 23 579

Source: Lagasse (1958).


2.4. Urbanization patterns for different groups of Aboriginal people

Urbanization and the patterns of migration that accompany it vary between different sub-

groups of the population. The potential number of sub-groups we could compare is large, but

here we focus on some key dimensions—Metis and First Nations peoples, age and gender.

2.4.1. Metis and First Nations peoples

Contemporary statistics demonstrate that the Metis population is more urbanized than

the First Nations population. In 2001, 41.5% of individuals identifying as North American

Indian (the Census category for First Nations peoples) lived in urban areas. In contrast,

68.1% of Metis people lived in cities. The lack of census information, particularly about the

Metis population, makes it difficult to unravel differences in settlement patterns historically.

However, urbanization trends appear to be different for First Nations and Metis populations.

In 1956, the Manitoba Legislature commissioned a major study on the people of Indian and

Metis ancestry living in Manitoba, and that study provides one point of comparison. The

study identified individuals through a combination of ascribed and self-identity, and

identified 22 077 First Nations and 23 579 Metis living in Manitoba. The areas of residence

for Metis are described in Table 5. The study does not describe how ‘predominantly’ was

defined. In other words, ‘predominantly’ could mean anything between just over 50%

Metis, to a much higher concentration. The data do suggest though, that many Metis lived in

or on the fringes of ‘White’ settlements. In comparison, in 1951, only about 7% of First

Nations people lived in urban areas.

Migration from rural to urban areas is not currently the main pattern of movement for

either Metis or First Nations people. However, the size of population flows between

particular origins and destination is slightly different for these groups. Unfortunately, this

type of migration data is only available for Metis and Registered Indian populations,6 but

the comparisons are still useful in identifying differences between population groups.

Of Metis people who moved between census subdividisions between 1996 and 2001, over

half moved between urban areas, almost one-quarter moved from cities to reserves or rural

areas, 16% moved from rural or reserve areas to cities, and less than 10% moved between

rural areas (including reserves) (Table 6). While city to city migration was also most

6 Registered Indians are individuals who are registered, pursuant to the Indian Act.

Table 6

Metis and registered Indian migration flows 1996–2001

Origin–destination Percent of total migration

Metis Registered Indian

Urban–urban 52.9 37.6

Urban-reserve/rural 20.4 26.1

Rural/reserve–urban 17.8 23.1

Rural/reserve–rural/reserve 8.9 13.1

Source: Norris and Clatworthy (2003).


frequent for Registered Indians, the latter were more likely to move from cities to reserves

and between rural areas than Metis people.

These patterns of migration suggest that Metis urban and rural populations are much more

distinct from each other than Registered Indian urban and rural populations. Two-thirds of

the Metis migrants originating in urban areas move to other cities, not to rural or reserve

areas. In other words, the back and forth movement between rural to urban areas that we find

among Registered Indian migrants is not as pronounced among Metis. At the same time, one-

fifth of urban Metis did migrate from urban to rural areas between 1996 and 2001. Although

the numbers are not available, this is probably higher than the rates we would find in the non-

Aboriginal population. Like the Registered Indian population, then, these patterns seem to

demonstrate a continuing rural attachment of at least a segment of the Metis population.

2.4.2. Aboriginal women and men

Since the early 1950s when residency data began to be collected systematically by the

Indian Affairs Branch (now the Department of Indian Affairs), population numbers show

that First Nations women have been more likely than First Nations men to live in urban

areas (Gerber, 1984; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996) Data from the 2001

Census show that this pattern continues for First Nations women, and that Metis women

demonstrate similar patterns. Table 7 shows that Aboriginal women are more likely than

Table 7

Area of residence, Aboriginal men and women 15 and older, 2001

Number % of total population

On reservea

Male 91 360 29.3

Female 88 840 26.1

Off reserve, not urban

Male 65 850 21.1

Female 66 345 19.5

Urban

Male 154 150 49.5

Female 184 800 54.4

Source: Selected demographic and cultural characteristics, Aboriginal origin, age groups, sex and area of

residence for population, for Canada, provinces and territories, 2001 census—20% sample data (Aboriginal

peoples of Canada, 2001 census), http://www.Statcan.ca/english/IPS/Data/97F0011XCB01048.htm.a The on reserve population includes a small number of reserves in urban areas.


Aboriginal men to live in urban areas, and that Aboriginal men are more likely than

Aboriginal women to live on reserves and in rural areas. The reasons for these differences

are not well understood and they may have to do with differences in employment

opportunities for men and women, responsibilities for children’s education and other

services, access to social assistance and other factors. However, First Nations women’s

submissions to the recent Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples also implicated the

erosion of women’s roles in First Nations communities with the colonial imposition of a

patriarchal system of governance and identity (Adams, 1992; Ellison, 1992; Fontaine,

1992; Courchene, 1993; Standingready, 1993), coupled with high levels of violence which

impacted most severely on women and children (Gamble, 1992; Meconse, 1992; Wilson,

1992; Croxon, 1993; Sillett, 1995). These residency patterns may also reflect historic

legislation that meant that First Nations women who married non-First Nations men lost

their legal status and their right of residency on the reserve. Since 1985, these women and

their descendents have been eligible to regain their status. For a variety of reasons that

include the lack of housing on reserves, many continue to live in urban areas. Metis

gendered residency patterns are not well understood. However, it is clear that urbanization

has a gender dimension.

2.4.3. Age

Data on age, residency patterns and mobility raise some very interesting questions

about the significance of urbanization among Aboriginal people (Table 8) Individuals

between 25 and 44 are most likely to live in urban areas. These are probably individuals

who move for economic reasons, or to give their children the opportunities that can be

found in urban areas. Older individuals are least likely to live in cities. Possibly the most

interesting statistics has to do with individuals younger than 15. Given that over half of

the main child-bearing population lives in cities, we would expect a similar percentage of

children in cities. However, fewer than half of children live in urban areas. This may

reflect values that reserves and rural Metis communities are good environments for

children, some of whom may be living with members of their extended families.

Table 8

Area of residence and mobility by age, Aboriginal identity 2001

% of Aboriginal

age group in urban

areas

% who moved into urban

area in the last 5 yearsa

Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal

0–14 323 725 47.9 26.4 20.9

15–24 169 065 51.8 30.4 24.7

25–44 294 405 54.0 28.7 28.0

45–64 149 205 50.4 16.7 12.7

65C 39 675 43.2 12.4 8.6

Source: Selected demographic and cultural characteristics, Aboriginal origin, age groups, sex and area of

residence for population, for Canada, provinces and territories, 2001 census—20% sample data (Aboriginal

peoples of Canada, 2001 census), http://www.Statcan.ca/english/IPS/Data/97F0011XCB01048.htm.a These data are for the population five and older. Individuals moved from another census subdivision,

province/territory, or country.


The proportion of Aboriginal people who moved into the city within the last 5 years is

higher than the proportion of non-Aboriginal people.

The data suggest that the relationship between urban areas and rural/reserve areas is

slightly different for Aboriginal people in different age groups, although these differences

are not large. The majority of the elderly (65C) and the young (less than 15) still live

outside of cities, even though most of the main child-bearing population lives in urban

areas. This suggests that there are continuing relationships between urban and rural

Aboriginal people in Canada.

2.4.4. Differences by cities

Migration rates and patterns are not uniform across cities. For example, an analysis of

migration patterns for the 1991–1996 data showed that all CMA’s except Saskatoon and

Thunder Bay experienced a net out-migration of Aboriginal people (Norris et al., 2002b).

We have no information for migration patterns in small urban areas, and this needs to be

kept in mind in any conclusions drawn from the data. Patterns of movement into and out of

cities will most likely vary by their location relative to reserves, the nature of urban

economies, and the services and organizations present in particular cities. However, we do

not have research to allow us to summarize what these influences might be.

Table 9 describes movement into CMA’s between 1996 and 2001 for different

population groups. While more Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal people moved into all of

these cities, the gap varies considerably between cities. In Thunder Bay and Saskatoon,

new migrants make up a much larger proportion of the Aboriginal than the non-Aboriginal

population. In Toronto and Vancouver, the proportions are quite similar for Aboriginal and

non-Aboriginal people. An examination of particular groups also demonstrates variations.

Table 9

Proportion who moveda into the CMA by population group, 2001

CMA Population group

Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal migrantsb North American

Indian

Metis

# %

Halifax 16.20 800 24.43 23.09 29.14

Montreal 21.18 3030 29.16 26.78 33.68

Ottawa-Hull 19.58 3030 23.90 24.03 22.37

Toronto 21.29 4135 22.13 20.32 25.83

Thunder Bay 8.12 1615 22.09 24.81 13.90

Winnipeg 11.16 7835 15.84 20.37 12.54

Regina 14.34 2635 19.33 23.28 13.67

Saskatoon 18.43 4795 27.31 31.75 22.40

Edmonton 20.11 9530 26.19 26.17 26.18

Calgary 21.98 5380 27.07 28.59 25.94

Vancouver 24.56 9400 27.63 26.88 28.11

Source: Statistics Canada, special cross-tabulations.a These are individuals who moved from another census subdivision, province/territory, or country.b Based on the Aboriginal identity data. The statistics for North American Indian and Metis are based on single

responses.


In Saskatoon, almost one-third of the North American Indian population arrived within

the last 5 years. In other cities, the ‘new’7 North American Indian population ranges

between one-quarter and one-fifth of the total North American Indian population of the

city. On Montreal, one-third of Metis moved to that city in the previous 5 years. However,

the numbers are small—only 1145. Generally, new migrants make up a smaller portion of

the Metis than the North American Indian population. The number of migrants and the

difference between cities and types of migrant populations means that planning for

transition and reception services needs to be sensitive to the situation in particular urban

areas, and the particular cultural group that is migrating.

2.5. Conclusions

A focus on contemporary social and economic marginalisation can hide the way the

dispossession of Aboriginal people from their lands and their isolation from the

metropolitan economy contributed to their contemporary conditions. Colonial histories

helped to create a population with lower education levels and employment experiences

than the general Canadian population. Aboriginal people’s migration to cities coincided

with the emergence of urban economies in which secure, relatively well-paying blue collar

employment was shrinking. These two factors probably played major roles in contributing

to the contemporary marginalisation of urban Aboriginal populations.

The factors contributing to Aboriginal urbanisation, defined as the increasing

proportion of the Aboriginal population living in urban areas, are complex. The growth

in urban Aboriginal populations, both in number and percent of the population suggests

that reserves and rural areas are being depopulated. However, patterns of migration show

that reserves and rural areas experienced a net in-migration between 1986 and 1996, and

only a slight net out-migration between 1996 and 2001. Churn, or back and forth

movement between cities and reserves/rural areas is an important facet of Aboriginal

migration.

The continued importance of reserves and rural areas as destinations for

Aboriginal migrants raises questions about the appropriate scale of planning for and

with Aboriginal people. Even strategies to counteract negative conditions that encourage

Aboriginal people to move frequently may not guarantee a stable population. Aboriginal

people may continue to migrate in search of economic opportunity or as a way of

maintaining connections with communities and cultures of origin. The information

available about long-term migration patterns among Aboriginal people, as well as

contemporary research about non-Aboriginal migrants, suggests that circulation between

cities and rural and reserve areas will remain significant, both in numbers and in terms of

cultural identity. With respect to planning issues, this suggests that initiatives focused only

on urban areas will not address some of the significant factors at work in urban Aboriginal

communities. There needs to be careful attention to the appropriate scale for different

facets of planning, and there needs to be careful attention to the interface between

structures and organisations in different locales.

7 The data do not indicate whether these individuals have lived in urban areas previously.


At the same time, migration patterns and distributions between urban and rural areas are

different for different population groups in the Aboriginal population. Metis people,

women, and young and middle-aged adults, and are more urbanized than First Nations

people, children and the elderly, and men. There are also considerable variations between

cities. Planning and policy-making will need to take account of these variations.


CHAPTER 3

Are Aboriginal people in cities forming ghettos?

While the ‘advanced marginality’ discussed by some contemporary urban theorists

(cf. Wacquant, 1996, 1999) includes more than spatial concentration, settlement patterns

are an important component. The concept of the underclass, developed to describe

processes occurring in US inner cities, drew connections between the intense

concentration of poverty (mostly by black households) over very large areas and social

isolation from mainstream society and values (Wilson, 1987; Hughes, 1990).

Clearly, the concentration of ethnic or cultural groups can have positive as well as

negative implications. Researchers have documented the development of mutual support

systems, increased abilities to maintain ethnic languages, relief from discrimination, and

economic benefits of ethnic businesses as some of the positive results of segregation (see

for example Gans, 1962; Breton, 1964; Boal, 1999). Much of the interpretation of urban

Aboriginal settlement patterns, however, draws on the underclass thesis, which emerged to

explain contemporary developments in many US inner cities. Wilson’s (1987, 1996)

analysis is most closely associated with this work. He suggested that the deindustrialisa-

tion and decentralisation of urban economies, in combination with civil rights initiatives

that allowed middle class residents to move out of the inner city, led to intense

concentration of disadvantaged populations in inner cities. Accompanied by public and

private disinvestment in inner cities, this concentration of poverty led to social and

economic isolation from mainstream society, and the emergence of social problems such

as rising levels of crime and gang activity, chronic joblessness and welfare dependency,

and growing numbers of mother-led families. Wilson was concerned to avoid a ‘culture of

poverty’ explanation, emphasising instead the structural components of urban economies

and the deleterious effects of social exclusion. Subsequently, there has been debate about

the inter-relationship of poverty and racial segregation in creating ghetto conditions

(Massey and Denton, 1993: 18; Wacquant, 1997: 342; Zukin, 1998).

The settlement patterns of urban Aboriginal people have been of concern to

governments, social agencies and a variety of academic researchers since the number of

Aboriginal people in cities began to increase in the 1950s. While materials from mid-

century on demonstrate agreement that migration to cities would create challenges for

Aboriginal people, there were also concerns that they would create poverty stricken

ghettos in inner city areas (Peters, 2000: 249–250). Recent government documents and

media reports show that concerns about the possibility of ghettoisation and its implications

for Aboriginal people and for cities, have not evaporated. References to the situation of

urban Aboriginal people frequently draw on the US experience, using terms like ‘ghetto’

to emphasise the segregation of urban Aboriginal people from the rest of the urban

population.

This chapter uses statistics on Aboriginal residential settlement patterns to assess the

degree to which processes occurring in the US, apply to the urban Aboriginal situation. It

addresses the question by exploring the extent to which Aboriginal people live in different

areas than non-Aboriginal populations, and the extent to which they are associated with


areas of concentrated poverty. It describes Aboriginal people’s patterns of segregation in

four cities and evaluates whether the results suggest that definitions of ghetto used to

describe settlement patterns of minority groups in the US, are appropriate for this

population.8

3.1. Residential segregation of urban Aboriginal people

3.1.1. Debates about Aboriginal residential segregation

Existing research about Aboriginal people’s settlement patterns in cities demonstrates

some contradictions. On one hand, early concerns about Aboriginal urbanisation focussed

in part on the possibility of their concentration in inner cities (Melling, 1967; Braroe,

1975; Stymeist, 1975; Decter, 1978; Lithman, 1984).9 Other research suggests Aboriginal

people were scattered throughout urban areas even in the 1960s and 1970s (Davis, 1965:

361–362; Nagler, 1970: 65; Dosman, 1972: 183–184; Krotz, 1980). The lack of Aboriginal

concentrations in the city and assumptions about the role of neighbourhoods in facilitating

adaptations generated several projects to encourage urban Aboriginal people to

concentrate in neighbourhoods in ways assumed to be typical of immigrants to urban

areas. Dosman (1972: 183) appears to have been the first to suggest that planners might

create a “well-designed, self-governing, native, residential community inside the city” in

order to meet many of the requirements of migrating Aboriginal people. His assumption

was that segregation would foster both informal and formal coping institutions. In the

early 1970s, personnel from the Indian Metis Friendship Centre and the City of Winnipeg

Planning Department undertook a $78 000 feasibility study for a Native urban village, to

be called ‘Neeginan’ (Damas and Smith, 1975). The absence of a Native enclave in the

city was the rationale for the proposal:

Neeginan assumed that the condition of the urban native is analogous to the situation

of the European immigrant except that the Indians do not have the advantage of the

ghetto. The ghetto can provide an incubator and an environment of language, people,

and support with which he is familiar. Given the eastern European and Jewish

communities in north Winnipeg, it would have been in the best tradition of

Winnipeg social organization.

A 1978 consultant’s report for Indian Affairs in Regina also suggested that Aboriginal

people should be encouraged to cluster so they could build up urban support networks

(Svenson, 1978: 22).

Some contemporary accounts suggest that contemporary Aboriginal people

are segregated in urban areas (Drost, 1995; Kazemipur and Halli, 2000; Richards,

2001). Media accounts also create this impression, using the terminology of the ghetto to

describe urban Aboriginal peoples (Stackhouse, 2001; Polese, 2002). Most recently,

8 A web site with links to maps of Aboriginal people in major cities with large Aboriginal populations can be

found at: http://gismap.usask.ca/website/Web_atlas/AQUAP.9 In the 1980s, many urban Aboriginal non-profit housing organizations attempted to disperse Aboriginal

households throughout the city (Lipman, 1986). This program was halted in the early 1990s, though, so current

settlement patterns cannot be attributed only to this initiative.


Hayden (2004: F6) used inner city US ghetto conditions to describe Aboriginal residents in

Saskatoon in the Globe and Mail.

Like urban natives in Saskatoon’s dilapidated core, working-class blacks in

Washington, [American lawyer and journalist] Ms. Dickerson says, “are living in a

different city and a different reality”. A reality that white residents like me rarely

visit. Like Washington’s primarily black South East quadrant, which I’ve seen only

from the safety of a Habitat for Humanity work site, I pass through Saskatoon’s

largely Aboriginal west-side neighbourhoods only to visit St. Paul’s Hospital

(emphasis added).

Two recent pieces of Canadian research argued that Aboriginal residential segregation

in poor inner-city neighbourhoods affected employment and life chances (Drost, 1995: 48;

Richards, 2001). Recent federal government reports also raised concern about urban

Aboriginal concentration (Canada, Privy Council Office, 2002: 8; Sgro, 2002: 21).

However, the available academic work that explores contemporary urban Aboriginal

settlement patterns, suggests that urban Aboriginal people are not currently segregated in

particular areas of the city, nor invariably located in the inner city (Maxim et al., 2000a).

Work using indices of dissimilarity to describe urban Aboriginal settlement patterns

uniformly concluded that segregation is low to moderate. In general terms the dissimilarity

index indicates the proportion of the minority population that would have to move to

replicate the distribution of the majority population. Values up to 0.3 are considered low,

0.4–0.5 are moderate and 0.6 and over is considered high. Researchers using 1981, 1991

and 1996 single origin ethnicity and 1996 identity census data for Census Metropolitan

Areas (CMA’s) found moderate dissimilarity indices for Aboriginal people, ranging from

about 0.2 to about 0.4 (Bourne et al., 1986; Clatworthy, 1994: 256; Maxim et al., 2000a;

Bauder and Sharpe, 2002; Darden and Kamel, 2002). How can these patterns be related to

ideas about ghettoisation in terms of segregation?

3.1.2. Measuring segregation

Segregation has been measured in a variety of ways. A number of indices were

proposed during the 1950s (Duncan and Duncan, 1955) and again in the late 1970s

(Massey and Denton, 1988). Massey and Denton’s (1988) paper describing five

dimensions of residential segregation and recommending a single index associated with

each became one of the cornerstones in ethnic segregation studies. However, Massey and

Denton’s model is not conducive to comparative studies because the indices are relative

measures, and depend on a group’s absolute and relative size within the city or on the area

employed (Poulsen et al., 2002). As a result, comparative studies are unreliable.

Moreover, it is clear that the term ghetto has referred to a wide variety of settlement

patterns associated with different ethnic and racialised groups (Philpott, 1978; Heibert,

2000: 311). In response, Peach (1996: 216–217) proposed a clear definition of the term

ghetto. According to Peach, a ghetto has dual characteristics.

The first.: a single ethnic or racial group forms the whole population of the

residential district. The second, concomitant proposition is that most members of

that group are found in such areas.


Building on Peach’s definition, researchers have developed measures of residential

segregation that focused on the absolute percentage of an area’s population composed of

particular group, and the proportion of the group living in areas with different levels of

concentration (Peach, 1996, 1999; Poulsen and Johnston, 2000; Johnston et al., 2001). The

procedure is to calculate the percentage of an area’s population comprised by a particular

group and sort these percentages according to rising thresholds, for example whether a

particular group comprises 20, 30, 40% and so on, of an area’s population. Then the

researcher can calculate the proportion of the group’s population that lives in areas with

different concentrations, for example the proportion of a group’s population that lives in

areas where the group makes up 50% or more of the population. The advantages of this

approach to measuring residential segregation are its simplicity, and the fact that, because

it employs absolute values, it can be used to compare patterns in different cities, different

time periods, and for populations of different sizes (Johnston et al., 2001; Poulsen et al.,

2001, 2002b).

Using this approach, Poulsen et al. (2001: 2074–2076) reserved the term ghetto for

areas where a minority group constituted more than 60% of an area and at least 30% of the

group lived in these areas of high concentration. This chapter employs these criteria to

evaluate whether contemporary Aboriginal settlement patterns in Canadian cities

approach levels of segregation that can be called ‘ghettos’.

3.1.3. Analysis: Aboriginal people and segregation

A description of residential settlement patterns for all large cities in Canada is beyond

the scope of this paper. Instead, I chose four cities, those with the largest absolute numbers

of Aboriginal people (Winnipeg and Edmonton) and those where Aboriginal people make

up the largest proportion of the urban population (Regina and Saskatoon). If there are

processes of ghettoisation occurring, they would be manifested in these cities. Table 10

describes the size of the Aboriginal population in the four cities, the proportion of the city

population they comprised, and their level of segregation from non-Aboriginal people at

the census tract level, based on the dissimilarity index. In 1981 the Aboriginal population

comprised between 2 and 4% of the population in all of these cities. Winnipeg had the

largest Aboriginal populations, at over 16 000, followed by Edmonton, then Regina and

finally Saskatoon. Dissimilarity indexes were low, with Regina approaching modest

Table 10

Aboriginal populations and dissimilarity indices in selected citiesa, 1981–2001

1981 2001

Number % of total

population

Dissimilarity

indexb

Number % of total

population

Dissimilarity

index

Winnipeg 16 510 2.96 .453 52 555 8.57 .370

Saskatoon 4220 2.77 .299 18 420 9.51 .367

Regina 6410 3.95 .371 15 345 4.78 .377

Edmonton 11 995 2.27 .300 30 350 4.58 .318

Source: Statistics Canada, special cross-tabulations.a We use city population because CMAs contain reserves, which skew measures of segregation.b Based on census tracts.


segregation. By 2001, the Aboriginal population in all of these cities had more than

doubled, with Winnipeg’s population more than tripling, and Saskatoon’s Aboriginal

population more than four times its 1981 level. The dissimilarity index had increased in

Saskatoon, Regina and Edmonton, but had decreased in Winnipeg. At the same time, all of

the dissimilarity indices were less than the 0.4 moderate level. As noted above, though,

indices such as the dissimilarity index are relative values; they are affected by size of

population and number of census tracts. The paper therefore turns to comparisons based on

the percentage of the Aboriginal population in different areas.

Table 11 shows the proportion of census tracts and the proportion of the Aboriginal

population that fall into different categories of concentration of the Aboriginal population,

for example census tracts where less than 10% of the population is Aboriginal, census

tracts where 10 to less than 20% of the population is Aboriginal, and so on. In 1981,

Aboriginal people comprised less than 10% of the population in over 90% of census tracts

in all of these cities. The majority of the Aboriginal population in all four cities lived in

tracts where they made up less than 10% of the population, with a range of between 70.6%

Table 11

Proportion of census tracts comprised of Aboriginal populations, selected cities, 1981 and 2001

Cities % in each

category

Proportion of census tract population Aboriginal

0–9.9 10–19.9 20–29.9 30–39.9 40–49.9 50C

1981

Winnipeg

(NZ130)a

% of tracts in each category 90.7 7.8 1.8 0 0 0

% of Aboriginal population in

each category

70.6 20.6 8.8 0 0 0

Saskatoon

(NZ34)

% of tracts in each category 94.1 2.9 0 0 0 0


each category

95.3 4.7 0 0 0 0

Regina

(NZ36)

% of tracts in each category 94.4 5.6 0 0 0 0


each category

79.3 20.7 0 0 0 0

Edmonton

(NZ125)

% of tracts in each category 99.2 0 0 .9 0 0


each category

99.7 0 0 .3 0 0

2001

Winnipeg

(NZ154)

% of tracts in each category 72.4 15.6 5.9 5.3 .7 .7


each category

42.0 24.5 16.7 11.2 3.2 3.2

Saskatoon

(NZ43)

% of tracts in each category 65.1 18.6 7.0 9.3 0 0


each category

36.5 30.6 7.2 25.6 0 0

Regina

(NZ47)

% of tracts in each category 68.1 23.4 4.3 4.3 0 0


each category

39.3 31.0 11.2 18.5 0 0

Edmonton

(NZ161)

% of tracts in each category 87.5 11.2 .7 0 .7 0


each category

70.4 29.5 !0.1 0 .1 0

Source: 1981 and 2001 census.a Number of census tracts for each city.


of the Aboriginal population living in low concentration tracts in Winnipeg and 99.7% of

the Aboriginal population in low concentration tracts for Edmonton

By 2001 there were more census tracts containing higher proportions of Aboriginal

people. In Winnipeg, the Aboriginal population of one census tract was slightly higher

than 50%, and in another tract Aboriginal people comprised between 40 and 49.9% of the

tract population. There were also some census tracts with concentrations of 20–29.9% and

30–39.9% Aboriginal. However, two-thirds of Aboriginal people lived in areas where they

comprised less than 20% of the population. Saskatoon and Regina distributions were

similar to each other, with about two-thirds of the Aboriginal population in tracts where

they comprised less than 20% of the population. There were no census tracts in either

Regina or Saskatoon where Aboriginal people made up more than 39.9% of the

population. In Edmonton, almost all of the Aboriginal population lived in tracts

where Aboriginal people comprised less than 20% of the population. There was one tract

where Aboriginal people comprised between 40 and 49.9% of the population, but it only

had a total population of approximately 50 people. In other words, although the size of

the Aboriginal population increased substantially between 1981 and 2001, and although

Aboriginal people were more likely to live in census tracts with higher proportions

of Aboriginal residents, their overall levels of segregation still appeared to be low.

Table 12 measures whether or not a significant proportion of the total Aboriginal

population in each city are found in a limited number of census tracts. Saskatoon had the

fewest tracts that contained very small proportions of the total city Aboriginal population

and the most tracts containing relatively larger proportions. Regina was next, followed by

Winnipeg and then Edmonton. Nevertheless, even the tracts in Saskatoon with the largest

share of the Aboriginal population contained only 6.9% of the total Aboriginal population.

In Regina, the census tract with the largest share of the total city Aboriginal population

contained 14.7% of the population. By 2001, the Aboriginal population was more

dispersed in all of these cities. More census tracts held smaller shares of the total city

Aboriginal population, and fewer tracts held larger shares. Regina, with one tract that held

14.7% of the total city Aboriginal population, had the highest concentration measured by

this statistic. However, this level of concentration had not increased since 1981.

In Saskatoon, the tract with the largest share held 8.5% of the total city Aboriginal

population. In other words, most census tracts in all of these cities contain a relatively

small portion of the total city population, and the pattern is that urban Aboriginal

populations in all of these cities are distributed across more census tracts in 2001 than in

1981.

In summary, by 2001 Aboriginal people comprised the majority of the population in

one census tract in Winnipeg, but not in Saskatoon, Regina, or Edmonton. However,

only a very small proportion of the total city Aboriginal population (3.23%) lived in

that Winnipeg census tract. None of the cities met Poulsen et al. (2001: 2076) criteria

for a ghetto, defined as an area where a minority group constituted more than 60% of

the population, containing at least 30% of the total group population. Moreover, the

direction of change in the segregation of Aboriginal populations over time, as measured

by the dissimilarity index, and Tables 11 and 12 suggest that the ghetto levels of

concentration may not occur in these cities, even if Aboriginal populations continue to

increase.

Table 12

Proportion of census tracts and proportion of total Aboriginal population at different levels of concentration, selected cities, 1981 and 2001

Cities Proportion of total urban Aboriginal population per tract

0 0.1–0.9 1.0–1.9 2.0–2.9 3.0–3.9 4.0–4.9 5.0–5.9 6.0C NRa

1981

Winnipeg

(NZ130)b

% of tracts in each category 7.7 70.0 11.5 3.9 4.6 1.5 0 0 0.8

# of tracts in each category 10 91 15 5 6 2 0 0 1

Saskatoon

(NZ34)

% of tracts in each category 2.9 14.7 23.5 5.9 17.6 8.8 11.8 11.8 2.9


Regina

(NZ36)

% of tracts in each category 5.6 22.2 19.4 25.0 5.6 2.8 8.3 11.1 0


Edmonton

(NZ125)

% of tracts in each category 3.2 60.0 22.4 6.4 0.8 0 0 0 7.2


2001

Winnipeg

(NZ154)

% of tracts in each category 0.7 78.6 14.9 3.9 0.7 0 0 0 1.3


Saskatoon

(NZ43)

% of tracts in each category 0 27.9 34.9 14.0 4.7 9.3 2.3 7.0 0


Regina

(NZ47)

% of tracts in each category 0 31.9 25.5 25.5 10.6 2.1 0 4.3 0


Edmonton

(NZ161)

% of tracts in each category 0.6 74.5 15.5 3.7 0 0 0 0 5.6


Source: 1981 and 2001 census.a Non-residential.b Number of census tracts for each city.

E.

Peters

/P

rog

ressin

Pla

nn

ing

63

(20

05

)3

27

–4

04

35

9


3.2. Aboriginal people and areas of concentrated poverty

3.2.1. Areas of concentrated poverty in Canada

While there has been relatively little work that explores the degree to which areas of

concentrated poverty have emerged in Canadian cities, much of the existing work is

influenced by the American literature on black inner city areas, and particularly by the

provocative thesis of the underclass ghetto. Comparing statistics on poverty in US and

Canadian cities in 1985 and 1986, respectively, Hajnal (1995) argued that proportionately

more poor people in Canadian than in United States cities lived in areas of concentrated

poverty. Other researchers argued that Canadian cities do not exhibit the same degree of

deprivation, or the spatial concentration of poverty, of US cities (Kazemipur and Halli,

2000; Ley and Smith, 2000; Seguin and Divay, 2002).

All of the work on poverty in Canadian cities shows that Aboriginal people are over-

represented among the urban poor (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Lee,

2000; Graham and Peters, 2002; Drost and Richards, 2003; Jaccoud and Brassard, 2003;

Heisz and McLeod, 2004). The urban Aboriginal population is also more likely than the

non-Aboriginal population to live in poor urban neighbourhoods (Hajnal, 1995: 510;

Kazemipur and Halli, 2000: 129; Richards, 2001: 13; Darden and Kamel, 2002; Heisz and

McLeod, 2004: 7). Some authors have drawn on the US underclass literature to argue that

living in poor neighbourhoods affects Aboriginal people’s life changes (Drost, 1995: 47;

Richards, 2001).

It is difficult to identify a consistent message from the available literature about the

nature of areas of concentrated poverty and their relationship to Aboriginal settlement

patterns in Canadian cities. On one hand, some writers use language that suggests that

models of concentrated poverty describing US ghettos apply to Aboriginal settlement

patterns in Canadian cities. On the other hand, the available data suggest that there is not

nearly the same level of concentration of Aboriginal people in areas of extreme poverty in

Canadian cities as there is among minority groups in US cities. The next section attempts

to sort through these issues.

3.2.2. Measuring concentrated poverty

There are debates about how to measure the kinds of conditions that create the

‘ghetto effects’ posited in the underclass thesis. Researchers addressing contemporary

poverty in US cities have used two main approaches to measurement. One approach

focuses on the behavioural characteristics associated with the emergence of underclass

ghettos. The other relies on data about the proportion of an area’s population that has

incomes below the federally defined poverty line. Geographers and others have also

emphasized the importance of the spatial extent of areas of poverty in affecting

people’s life chances.

The behavioural approach to identifying ghetto areas is associated with Ricketts and

Sawhill (1988: 319), who argued that the literature on the underclass ghetto emphasized

behaviours that are “most likely to inhibit social mobility, to impose costs on the rest of

society, or to influence children growing up in an environment where such behaviours are

commonplace”. They proposed a behavioural definition of underclass areas based on high


proportions of high school dropouts, male unemployment, welfare recipients and mother-

led households.

In contrast, Jargowsky (1997: 17–19) argued that the behavioural characteristics

associated with the underclass represent a response to poverty, and that not all individuals

experiencing poverty develop these behaviours. Jargowsky (1997: 9–12) identified high

poverty neighbourhoods as those with a poverty rate of 40% or more, arguing that a rate of

20% or more included too much variation, and that neighbourhoods with a rate of 60%

were almost completely composed of neighbourhoods of public housing units. In field

research, Jargowsky and Bane (1991) found that neighbourhoods with 40% poverty rates

were most often selected by knowledgeable municipal representatives as areas with ghetto

characteristics.

Hughes (1990) emphasized the importance of a geographic perspective that took into

account the spatial extent of areas of concentrated poverty which made it difficult for

residents to have contact with alternative role models and social institutions. We do not

have research available that addresses how large an area of concentrated poverty needs to

be, to create ghetto or underclass effects. However, the literature on US inner city areas

showed that they are often composed of many, contiguous census tracts with populations

characterised by various measures of deprivation. This section uses all of these measures

to explore the extent to which we can define areas in Canadian cities with levels and

degrees of concentration of poverty like those in US cities, and the extent to which the

Aboriginal population is found in these areas.

3.2.3. Analysis: Aboriginal people and concentrated poverty

Table 13 summarizes the relationship between areas of concentrated poverty and urban

Aboriginal people. One measure identifies census tracts where the proportion of people

whose income falls below the federally defined low income level reaches 40% or higher.

Poverty is defined on the basis of Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut Off line. The second

measure uses an approximation of the behavioural variable that Ricketts and Sawhill

(1988) proposed as a way of identifying underclass areas. These are census tracts

containing:

two times the metropolitan median percentage of adult males who are unemployed;

two times the metropolitan median percentage of transfer income;

Table 13

Poverty characteristics of census tracts in four cities

Total tracts Tracts with all of the behavioural charac-

teristics

Tracts with 40%Cindividuals with

incomes below LICO

# of tracts % Aboriginal % of total

Aboriginal

population

# of tracts % Aboriginal % of total

Aboriginal

population

Winnipeg 130 0 n/a n/a 18 26.6 31.5

Regina 36 0 n/a n/a 5 30.8 28.6

Saskatoon 34 2 36.1 10.0 3 33.5 17.0

Edmonton 161 0 n/a n/a 4 11.5 8.1


two times the metropolitan median percentage of adults without high school

education; and

two times the metropolitan median percentage of mother-led families.

Finally, following Hughes (1990), the analysis explores the extent to which tracts

identified as having ghetto characteristics are contiguous.

The discussion is ordered from cities that demonstrated the least evidence of

concentrated poverty, to cities that demonstrated the most. In Edmonton in 2001, there

were no tracts that scored on all four of the behavioural characteristics of deprivation.

There were only four census tracts with 40% or more of residents with income below the

poverty line. While these tracts were in the same general area of the city (north of the

downtown) they only shared two boundaries. None of these tracts were areas with

relatively high proportions of Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people made up only 11.5%

of the population in these tracts, and only 8.1% of the total city Aboriginal population

lived in them. There is little evidence to suggest the emergence of ghetto areas of poverty

associated with Aboriginal populations in Edmonton, in 2001.

Like Edmonton, Regina had no census tracts that scored on all four behavioural

characteristics. It had five tracts where more than 40% of individuals had incomes below

the LICO, but only one tract shared more than one boundary with another high poverty

tract. Slightly more than 30% of the people living in high poverty census tracts were

Aboriginal, and about the same proportion of the total Regina Aboriginal population lived

in these areas.

Saskatoon and Winnipeg had the highest levels of concentrated poverty, although

the configuration of this poverty differed slightly between the two cities. In Saskatoon,

two census tracts scored on all four behavioural characteristics, and about one-third of

the population in these tracts was Aboriginal. Only about 10% of the total city

Aboriginal population lived in these areas. Three tracts had 40% of more of residents

with incomes below the LICO. However, these tracts contained a smaller proportion

of the total city Aboriginal population than either Winnipeg or Regina. In Winnipeg,

there were no census tracts that scored on all four of the behavioural indices. There

were 18 census tracts with 40% or more of residents with income below the poverty

line. In one census tract, 79.1% of individuals had incomes below the poverty line in

2000. These tracts formed an almost continuous area south and north of Winnipeg’s

CBD (Fig. 3). Slightly more than one-quarter (26.6%) of the population in these high

poverty tracts is Aboriginal, and 31.5% of the city Aboriginal population lived in

these areas.

High poverty tracts made up 10% or more of the census tracts in the city in Regina,

Saskatoon and Winnipeg—a proportion that approaches that found by Jargowsky (1997:

78) in US cities in 1990. However, the number of tracts with high levels of poverty is

considerably lower in these cities than in US cities. Hughes’ (1989: 192) research, for

example, found that in 1980, 42 census tracts in Philadelphia, 40 tracts in Detroit, and 35

tracts in Chicago had the characteristics of an underclass ghetto. Most of these census

tracts were adjacent. If isolation is an important feature of contemporary characteristics of

concentrated poverty, as some theorists have argued, then the effect would be much less

Fig. 3. Proportion of census tract population that is low income Winnipeg, 2000*.


severe in cities like Winnipeg than in US cities where areas with high levels of poverty

contain a very large number of contiguous census tracts.

Clearly, Aboriginal people are over-represented in high poverty tracts compared to

their proportion of the city population. Nevertheless, they do not comprise anywhere

near a majority of the individuals living there. More than two-thirds of the

residents of areas with high levels of poverty are non-Aboriginal. In contrast,


Jargowsky (1997: 61–62) found that in 1990, nearly four out of five (77.5%) residents

of high poverty neighbourhoods were members of minority groups, and almost half

(49.7%) were Black. In other words, the association between Aboriginal populations

and high poverty areas in these cities is not nearly as strong as the association

between minority groups and high poverty areas in large US cities. While the poverty

of urban Aboriginal residents in Canadian cities is of concern, they do not exhibit the

same population characteristics of areas identified as underclass ghettos in US cities in

the 1980s and 1990s.

3.3. Conclusion

A number of urban theorists have suggested recently, that the residential settlement

patterns found in US cities are unique to that country, and do not represent natural urban

processes applicable to all urban situations (Peach, 1999; Bauder and Sharpe, 2002;

Poulsen and Johnston, 2000; Burnley and Heibert, 2001). The analysis in this paper

supports this research, showing that Aboriginal settlement patterns in Canadian cities do

not replicate the experience of concentrated segregation that is found in many US cities.

The results suggest that it is important to evaluate carefully the applicability of models

constructed to describe the situation of other groups to the situation of Aboriginal people

in Canadian cities. It is important to begin to build explanations of Aboriginal settlement

patterns that take into account specific process working in Canada, and for Aboriginal

peoples.

Some questions that emerge from Aboriginal settlement patterns have to do with

choices between programs and institutions that are concentrated in or spatially targeted

toward particular neighbourhoods, and initiatives that have a wider urban focus. Key

informants in Hanselmann’s (2002a: 5) research identified several principles with respect

to service locations. On one hand, interviews emphasised that the poverty of many

Aboriginal people meant that services should be located close to where they lived. ‘One

stop shopping’ was a closely related theme that argued for the co-location of services and

government departments in order to meet multiple client needs. On the other hand, some

interviewees also identified the need for multiple service locations because of the

dispersion of urban Aboriginal populations.

There are a number of advantages associated with spatially targeted initiatives.

Neighbourhood institutions may be more responsive to local needs. They can serve to

anchor an identity for a particular community, contribute to empowerment of local

residents who participate in these institutions, and help to create a feeling of collective

belonging. These are important elements in the context of the need for community

building in urban areas identified by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996:

531–537). Urban Aboriginal people are over-represented in poor neighbourhoods and

neighbourhood Aboriginal economic development initiatives may provide opportunities

for building social capital and increasing economic integration and community

development.

Information about settlement patterns suggests, though, that urban Aboriginal people

are not all clustered in one or two neighbourhoods in most cities. It is not easy to interpret

these settlement patterns, but they may represent choices by some Aboriginal people not to


cluster in distinct neighbourhoods. In this context, it is important to consider some of the

ways that spatially targeted initiatives can have unintended negative consequences. They

can sharpen the stigmatisation of an area and increase the concentration of a marginalised

group. Moreover, if initiatives are directed to a few neighbourhoods, they can create

inequities because they do not reach the population outside these areas.

Maybe some combination of spatial and aspatial initiatives is the most appropriate. One

option is the clustering of service organisations and community development initiatives in

poorer neighbourhoods with higher proportions of Aboriginal people, in combination with

the development of Aboriginal focussed programs in areas such as education, culture, and

language available across urban areas. Whatever the solution in particular cities, the

decision needs to be made on the basis of information about the actual settlement patterns

of Aboriginal people, rather than on models developed to describe the experiences of other

marginalized groups in other urban areas.


CHAPTER 4

Urban economies and Aboriginal peoples: progress or decline?

An important component of the new urban marginality is the relationship between

marginalized groups and the labour force. According to Young (1990: 53), “Marginals

are people the system of labour cannot or will not use”. Many of the people who are

marginalized from labour force participation are racially marked. Young pointed out

that part of the harm caused by marginalization from the labour force has to do with

material deprivation or poverty. However, even where material deprivation is

addressed through distributive welfare initiatives, individuals who are excluded from

the labour force are denied opportunities to “exercise capacities in socially defined

and recognized ways” (Young, 1990: 54). Wacquant’s (1999: 1641) analysis identified

some of the unique features of marginalization in contemporary cities. He wrote that

one element of post-industrial marginalization involved simultaneous increases in

highly skilled professional and technical occupations and deskilling and the

elimination of large numbers of jobs for under-educated workers. A second element

involved the erosion of job conditions, with lower wages, less secure employment and

more part-time work. These elements of contemporary urban economies have also

been documented by other researchers, although there are debates about the inter-

related processes creating contemporary urban marginality (Hammett, 1994; 1996;

Glasmeier, 2002; Mohan, 2002). The intent in this chapter is not to engage with these

debates. Moreover, a detailed analysis of urban Aboriginal labour force participation

is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, it explores whether some aggregated

measures suggest that Aboriginal people are increasingly marginalised in Canadian

urban economies.

At the same time, it is important to remember that, for urban Aboriginal people,

economic development is seen as part of the process of creating healthy communities.

Aboriginal people who participated in the roundtables on urban issues organized by the

Royal Commission on Urban Aboriginal Peoples indicated that they did not perceive

economic issues existing in isolation from other issues in their communities.

Instead, they perceived the potential for success or failure of economic and

employment development in their communities as being connected with the spiritual

and cultural well-being in those communities. Economic development was

perceived as a tool to help Aboriginal people rebuild their communities

and societies. A healthier Aboriginal community might then be able to sustain

itself with increased economic investment and employment opportunities in the

future (1993: 49).

A number of writers have suggested that economic independence is an important

prerequisite for true self-determination (Opekokew, 1995; Prince and Abele, 2003). As

long as Aboriginal people are dependent on public support, they will be limited in

creating initiatives that reflect their needs and priorities rather than those of

government.


This chapter examines the question of Aboriginal marginalization in urban economies

in Canada. The first section examines the histories and contemporary realities of

assumptions about the relationship between urbanisation and improvements in labour

force characteristics. The Section 4.1 presents some of the economic and labour force

characteristics of urban Aboriginal people. Important emphases here have to do with

change over time and differences between CMA’s. The last section explores some

Aboriginal economic development initiatives undertaken in different cities.

4.1. Urbanisation as a solution to rural and reserve poverty

Migration to urban areas has been put forward as a solution to Aboriginal

unemployment and poverty for many decades. When the situation of rural First Nations

and Metis communities came into public consciousness after WWII, many people were

shocked at their intense poverty and isolation (Borovoy, 1966; Harding, 1971). Various

groups called for an investigation into Indian administration and the conditions on First

Nations reserves (Tobias, 1983: 15). In the face of the depressed social and

economic conditions of rural Aboriginal communities, the studies commissioned by

provincial governments identified urbanization as part of the solution (Hawthorn, 1958;

Lagasse, 1958; Davis, 1965). Hawthorn’s two volume report: A Survey of the

Contemporary Indians of Canada: Economic, Political, Education Needs and Policies,

commissioned by the federal government in 1963, and published in 1966 and 1967, made

recommendations for development in northern and rural First Nations communities.

However, researchers clearly felt that long-term economic improvement for First Nations

people could only be obtained through migration for employment, most of which would be

to centres beyond commuting distance from the reserves (Hawthorn, 1966–1967:

163–197). Even where analysts were convinced that urbanization presented major

challenges for migrants, rapid population growth in rural Aboriginal communities made

out-migration seem inevitable.

Table 14 compares Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal labour force participation in urban

and rural places. The labour force situation of Aboriginal people is worst on reserves and

best in urban areas, although there has been improvement in both areas. However, as Royal

Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996: 814) noted, ‘[t]he economic conditions of

Aboriginal people in urban areas are still well below those of non-Aboriginal people’. It is

not clear whether migration to urban areas represents an improvement in opportunities, or

whether individuals who are most likely to be successful in the labour force are also most

likely to move to urban areas. In other words, the difference in reserve/rural community

and urban characteristics may be largely a function of self-selection. Moreover, the

considerable migration back and forth between reserves/rural communities and urban

areas raises questions about the extent to which urban and reserve/rural populations are

different. It may be that urban Aboriginal people move back to rural/reserve communities

when they experience economic difficulty, because of better access to services or housing.

These questions are beyond the scope of this paper, but they raise some important

questions about the extent to which urbanisation can be viewed as a strategy for improving

Aboriginal people’s wellbeing.

Table 14

Labour force characteristics, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, urban, rural and reserve areas, 1991

and 2001


Urban Rural Reserve Urban Rural

Labour force participation rate (%)

1991 62.7 58.3 45.3 68.1 67.9

2001 65.4 63.9 52.1 66.6 66.4

Unemployment rate (%)

1991 22.9 22.1 30.8 9.7 10.6

2001 15.8 18.5 27.6 6.9 8.1

Sources: Royal Commission (1996: 814) and Statistics Canada, 97F0011XCB01044.


4.2. Economic and labour force marginalisation in urban areas

4.2.1. Poverty

The poverty of the Aboriginal population is a persistent theme in work on Aboriginal

urbanization (for example Melling, 1967; Brody, 1972; Frideres, 1974; Price and

McCaskill, 1974; Rowley, 1978). Some recent work shows that Aboriginal people

continue to be disproportionately represented in the poorer populations of Canada’s cities

(Kazemipur and Halli, 2000; Heisz and McLeod, 2004) Lee’s (2000: 38) analysis of the

1996 census found that “the incidence of poverty among urban Aboriginal people was the

highest of any population examined in this report, other than non-permanent residents”.

Other sources also document high levels of poverty among Aboriginal people in cities

(Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996: 609; Graham and Peters, 2002; Drost

and Richards, 2003; Jaccoud and Brassard, 2003).

Data from the 2001 census confirm the poverty of the urban Aboriginal population

(Table 15). They show that, on average, more than twice as many Aboriginal as non-

Aboriginal individuals in private households have incomes below the poverty line, while

almost twice as many non-Aboriginal as Aboriginal people earn good incomes, Aboriginal

people obtain a substantially higher proportion of their income from government transfer

sources than non-Aboriginal people, and their median incomes are about three fifths of

non-Aboriginal incomes. In CMA’s, Aboriginal people comprise 1.6% of the total

population, but they comprise 3.6% of the poor individuals living in private households.

These data are supported by other work. In their examination of low income in census

metropolitan areas in 2000, Heisz and McLeod (2004: 8) found that Aboriginal people are

more likely to have low incomes than recent or other immigrants. Lee (2000) made similar

observations concerning the 1996 census.

At the same time there are variations between cities. Aboriginal populations are most

disadvantaged in Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina and Saskatoon (Table 15). Aboriginal

people comprise almost one-fifth of the poor population in Thunder Bay and Winnipeg,

and slightly more than one-quarter of the poor population in Regina and Saskatoon. One

striking element of the table is that these cities do not have the highest proportion of non-

Aboriginal individuals in private households who are poor; in fact the proportion of these

individuals who are poor is lowest in Regina, and Thunder Bay, and Saskatoon also has

Table 15

Poverty in Aboriginal identity and non-Aboriginal populations in different CMA’s, 2001

Income % of individuals in

private households

poora

% of individuals with

good incomesb

% of income govern-

ment transfer

payments

Median income

Ab-

original

Non-

Aboriginal

Ab-

original

Non-

Aboriginal

Ab-

original

Non-

Aboriginal

Ab-

original

Non-

Aboriginal

Average 37.3 15.8 14.9 26.6 16.4 10.0 $15 634 $24 066

Halifax 34.2 15.3 12.9 24.9 15.3 10.7 $15 583 $23 061

Montreal 35.4 22.2 13.6 22.7 17.4 12.2 $16 603 $21 903

Ottawa-Hull 24.1 14.9 24.2 34.2 10.6 7.9 $22 928 $29 012

Toronto 26.3 16.6 23.1 29.0 9.5 7.9 $23 507 $25 606

Thunder

Bay

38.1 12.1 14.2 27.1 21.4 13.3 $14 187 $24 295

Winnipeg 47.7 16.6 9.6 23.0 19.7 11.4 $14 594 $23 248

Regina 52.3 12.1 9.6 26.0 25.2 10.3 $12 996 $24 926

Saskatoon 51.5 14.6 10.3 23.2 24.4 10.9 $12 437 $22 483

Calgary 28.8 13.7 16.1 30.5 11.5 7.0 $17 707 $25 920

Edmonton 34.7 15.2 14.6 27.1 16.5 9.7 $14 655 $23 629

Vancouver 37.1 20.4 15.7 26.3 16.8 9.5 $15 160 $23 395

Sources: Statistics Canada. Special cross-tabulations statistics Canada, Table 97F0011XCB01047.a The definition of private household is based on 1971 definitions, in an attempt to create comparable data over

three decades. As a result these results do not match contemporary Statistics Canada measures of poverty in for

unattached individuals and individuals in economic. Since the same base is used for Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal data, these data should nevertheless reflect the magnitude of difference between these two population

groups.b Individuals with total incomes of $40 000 or more (in 2001 dollars).


a relatively low proportion of individuals living in poverty. This suggests that factors

leading to poverty among urban Aboriginal people are complex, and do not systematically

reflect the nature of local economies. A more detailed analysis of these connections is

beyond the scope of this paper, but it emphasizes the need to consider local histories and

processes in policy and planning initiatives.

To examine the question of marginalisation, it is important to explore how Aboriginal

poverty changed over the last two decades. A comparison of characteristics of Aboriginal

and non-Aboriginal people over time addresses the question of whether Aboriginal people

are becoming more marginalized over time, or whether the socio-economic gap between

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations is slowly being reduced. Introducing changes

creates a new dimension of complexity. In the first place, changes in the structure of the

economy in recent decades mean that comparisons reflect not only changes in the

population characteristics, but also changes in the way work and compensation has shifted.

To address this, Table 16 compares changes for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal

populations. The comparison takes the form of a ratio between 2001 and 1981 numbers.

A result of 1.00 means there has been little change in this dimension over the last decade.

A result of less than 1.00 means that the 2001 figure is lower than the 1981 figure, and a

result of more than 1.00 means that the 2001 figure is higher than the 1981 figure. The

intent is to explore whether or not changes in Aboriginal economic and labour force

Table 16

Changing levels of poverty, Aboriginal identity and non-Aboriginal populations, 2001 and 1981


% of individuals in poverty, 2001 37.3 15.8

Change, 2001/1981 1.0 1.1

Adjusted change, Aboriginal 1.0

% of individuals with good income, 2001 14.9 26.8

Change, 2001/1981 1.2 1.1


% of income government transfer, 2001 16.4 10.0

Change, 2001/1981 0.7 0.8


Source: Statistics Canada, special cross-tabulations.


characteristics since 1981 mirror or diverge from those of the non-Aboriginal population,

and if they diverge, whether the result is greater or less marginalization.

A second source of complexity introduced by comparing 1981 and 2001 figures has to

do with patterns of change in self-identification in the Aboriginal identity population.

Some researchers have suggested that the population that newly identified as Aboriginal in

2001 (compared to 1981) is disproportionately represented in higher socio-economic

status categories. Siggner and Hagey (2003) addressed this issue by exploring changes

between 1996 and 2001 in the proportion of the Aboriginal population 15 and older and

out of school, with a university degree. They suggested that about half of the seeming

improvement in education levels might be the result of changing patterns of self-

identification. Tables 16 and 18 shows adjusted 2001/1981 change ratios based on the

estimate that about half of the improvement may be the result of changes in self-

identification. The adjusted ratios probably give a more accurate reflection of real socio-

economic change in the urban Aboriginal population.

Unadjusted ratios suggest that there has been a considerable lessening of poverty

among urban Aboriginal people in the last two decades. However, the adjusted ratios

suggest that changes in the situation for Aboriginal people have matched the direction and

degree for non-Aboriginal people. The change in percentage of individuals in poverty is

virtually identical for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, and it is identical for

proportions of income from government transfer payments and for Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal individuals with good incomes. That is, aggregate statistics suggest that the

Aboriginal population is not increasingly marginalized in urban areas; in fact there has

been some improvement since 1981. However, the gap between Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal people has not decreased substantially. Given the generally high poverty rates

in this population to start with, this lack of change is cause for serious concern.

4.2.2. Labour force

While there is a small body of work that examines Aboriginal labour force

characteristics, there is relatively little that focuses specifically on urban areas. The

work that does exist consistently shows that Aboriginal unemployment rates are higher

than non-Aboriginal unemployment rates even though participation rates are similar.

Table 17

Labour force characteristics, Aboriginal identity and non-Aboriginal populations in different CMA’s, 2001

Unemployment ratea Participation rate % managerial, super-

visory, or professional

% in tertiary sector

Ab-

original

Non-

Aboriginal

Ab-

original

Non-

Aboriginal

Ab-

original

Non-

Aboriginal

Ab-

original

Non-

Aboriginal

Average 17.9 7.6 67.3 69.8 23.4 37.2 79.7 80.0

Halifax 17.0 8.5 72.3 68.4 19.8 35.9 86.7 87.3

Montreal 16.1 9.2 65.6 66.5 27.2 34.4 79.7 78.0

Ottawa-Hull 9.3 7.2 73.3 71.2 37.0 46.4 86.5 86.5

Toronto 11.2 7.7 72.9 69.6 28.9 38.8 80.6 78.3

Thunder

Bay

27.8 9.5 59.3 64.7 24.0 29.8 85.9 79.6

Winnipeg 16.9 6.2 65.5 69.4 20.0 32.7 80.0 80.8

Regina 23.7 6.2 60.2 71.7 20.1 35.7 85.2 87.0

Saskatoon 26.9 7.2 61.3 71.3 22.9 33.6 79.0 79.8

Calgary 12.7 6.1 76.3 75.7 22.4 38.3 75.0 78.0

Edmonton 16.8 6.5 68.3 72.5 21.1 33.8 75.5 79.2

Vancouver 20.0 7.3 64.8 68.5 22.4 36.4 79.9 83.1

Sources: Statistics Canada. Special cross-tabulations.a Unemployment rates and participation rates are calculated on the basis of 1971 definitions. They are slightly

higher than measures used by Statistics Canada today. Because the same measures are employed for Aboriginal

and non-Aboriginal people, the measures should accurately reflect differences between these populations.


Drost’s (1995) work on individual characteristics associated with unemployment in 1991

in nine CMA’s found that age, education levels, and industry all had significant effects on

employment, while gender and marital status did not. Delegates to the Royal Commission

on Aboriginal Peoples round table on urban issues emphasized a number of additional

factors affecting unemployment. These included the difficulty of looking for employment

when basic needs for shelter, food and clothing had not been met, the effects of racism, and

the lack of accessible child-care (Royal Commission, 1996: 817).

Table 17 summarises various labour force indicators for Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal people in Canada’s largest cities in 2001. While Aboriginal and

non-Aboriginal people have close to the same levels of labour force participation

rates, the unemployment rate among urban Aboriginal people is double that of the non-

Aboriginal population. In other words, even though Aboriginal people are active in the

labour market, this is not translated into employment at the same rate as it is for non-

Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are under-represented in managerial, supervisory

and professional occupations, although their representation in the tertiary sector is

similar to that of non-Aboriginal populations.

Drost (1995) found that, even controlling for standard characteristics that affect

employment (age, gender, level of education, marital status) the city of residence had the

most significant effect on the probability of being employed. He (1995: 42–3) noted that:

It is in the major cities of Western Canada where Aboriginals are far more prone to

become unemployed.Considering that more than 20% of all urban Aboriginals

included in the Public Use Sample Tape reside in western Canadian CMAs,


the adverse labor market experience of Aboriginals in these cities very much

determines the outcome for the urban Aboriginal population as a whole.

Other sources also emphasize the fact that Aboriginal people are more economically

marginalized in cities in the prairie provinces than in other areas (Indian and Northern

Affairs Canada, 2001; Mendelson, 2004). Table 17 confirms these findings of substantial

variations between CMAs and particularly problematic outcomes in prairie cities. Thunder

Bay, Regina and Saskatoon have the highest Aboriginal unemployment rates and the

largest differentials between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations. Ottawa-Hull and

Toronto have the lowest unemployment rates, with 7.3 and 8.7, respectively.

An analysis of how characteristics of labour force participation change over time

contributes to our interpretation of Aboriginal marginalization in the labour force.

Table 18 presents a summary of changes between 2001 and 1981, with an adjustment for

Table 18

Change in labour force characteristics, Aboriginal identity and non-Aboriginal populations, CMA’s, 1981 and 2001


Unemployment rate

2001 17.9 7.6

Change ratio 2001/1981 1.0 1.0

Adjusted Aboriginal ratio 1.0

Participation rate

2001 67.3 69.8

Change ratio 2001/1981 1.0 1.0

Percent in occupational categoriesa

Managerial, professional, supervisory, 2001 23.4 37.2

Change ratio 2001/1981 1.5 1.4


White collar 51.7 44.9

Change ratio 2001/1981 1.0 0.9


Blue collar 24.9 17.9

Change ratio 2001/1981 0.8 0.8



Percent in tertiary industriesb

2001 79.7 80.0

Change ratio 2001/1981 1.1 1.1


Business services and FIRA 11.2 18.3

Change ratio 2001/1981 1.2 1.4


Government and community services, 2001 27.3 22.7

Change ratio 2001/1981 1.3 1.0


Source: Statistics Canada, special cross-tabulations.a Percentage of those who stated an occupation.b Percentage of those classified.


the effects of changes in self-identification, and a comparison of changes in the Aboriginal

to the non-Aboriginal population. Unemployment and participation rates did not change

substantially for either Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal people in 1981 and 2001. Both

populations showed an increase in average participation rates. The average increase in the

proportion of the population employed in managerial, professional and supervisory

occupations was larger in the non-Aboriginal than in the Aboriginal identity population.

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people experienced a slight decrease in the proportion

in primary and secondary industry sectors and a slight increase in the proportion in the

tertiary sector. The direction and magnitude of changes were similar for both populations.

In an attempt to simplify the analysis, the table describes only the tertiary sector, which

employed approximately four-fifths of both populations. Within the tertiary sector, the

table focuses on employment in business services/finance, insurance and real estate

(FIRA) and government and community services, because these are areas of employment

that are most likely to produce good incomes. Both populations showed an increase in

tertiary employment, but the increase was greater for non-Aboriginal than for Aboriginal

populations. When the tertiary sector is disaggregated, the statistics show that most of the

increase in employment in this sector for Aboriginal people came from increasing

employment in government and community services. In contrast, most of the increase for

non-Aboriginal people came from business services and employment in finance, insurance

and real estate.10 Wotherspoon’s (2003: 156) analysis identifies the importance of

employment in government and community services for Aboriginal movement into the

middle class, noting that “the rise of the new middle classes historically has accompanied

the expansion of state functions to train and maintain a healthy population, manage the

marginalized segments of the population, and administer public services”. Table 18

reinforces the importance of employment in this sector as a source of good jobs for urban

Aboriginal people.

4.2.3. Summary

These very general descriptions of urban Aboriginal economic and labour force

characteristics show that Aboriginal people are disproportionately poor, excluded from

labour markets, and dependent on government transfer payments. One of the aspects of

urban Aboriginal socio-economic conditions these data cannot address is the extent to

which there is polarisation within the urban Aboriginal population. Clearly, there are very

major differences in poverty and labour force participation between cities in Manitoba and

Saskatchewan, and other cities. In other words, there seems to be some geographic

polarisation. There are also differences within the Aboriginal population itself. Clatworthy

et al. (1995a,b) found that the wages of Registered Indians fell far behind those of other

Aboriginal groups in 1991. Bernier’s (1997: n.p.) analysis of wage inequality of

Aboriginal people based on 1991 Census data found that “there is greater disparity in

10 In 1981, 9.4% of the urban Aboriginal population worked in the business and FIRA sector, 20.6 worked in

government and community services, and 41.1 in other tertiary sectors. The proportions for 2001 were 11.2, 27.3,

and 41.2, respectively. In 1981, 13.0% of the urban non-Aboriginal population worked in the business and FIRA

sector, 22.0% in government and community services, and 38.7 in other tertiary sectors. The proportions in 2001

were 18.3, 22.7, and 39.0.


the distribution of wages among Aboriginals than among Canadian workers as a whole,

even after allowing for demographic differences”. These findings suggest that, while all

urban Aboriginal people may not be marginalized, some segments may be.

The information in this section does show that, while the situation of urban Aboriginal

people has improved over the last two decades, the gap between Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal people has not narrowed significantly. In other words, there is no evidence in

these aggregate statistics that the Aboriginal population is becoming more marginalised.

Given their low socio-economic status to begin with, though, the lack of progress is

extremely troubling. The following section documents some of the initiatives that have

been developed to address Aboriginal people’s poverty and unemployment.

4.3. Urban Aboriginal economic development initiatives

It is extremely difficult to document initiatives in urban Aboriginal economic

development. There are relatively few studies of this subject available in the literature. In

addition, governments do not usually compile inventories of programs by sub-populations

(Hanselmann, 2001: 11). The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996: 817)

identified two main approaches to improving urban Aboriginal economic situations. One

approach focuses on improving individual Aboriginal participation in mainstream

economies through employment and training initiatives. A second approach is aimed at

increasing economic opportunities within a distinct Aboriginal economy.

4.3.1. Improving Aboriginal participation in the labour force

Most of the employment related programs and services for urban Aboriginal people

developed by governments and non-profit (including Aboriginal) organisations focus

on incorporating urban Aboriginal people into the mainstream labour force. Table 19

compares the number of programs that support training and employment and those

that support economic development (including the development of Aboriginal

economies) documented in recent research by the Canada West Foundation in prairie

cities. Clearly counting programs does not give an indication of the amount of

funding per program or their effectiveness, and training and employment programs

can also support the development of Aboriginal economic initiatives. However, the

difference in numbers of programs is great enough to indicate that the main focus of

governments and other organizations has been on integrating urban Aboriginal people

into mainstream economies as individuals, rather than on promoting Aboriginal

business development.

Table 19

Summary of programs and services for urban Aboriginal people in prairie CMA’s, 2001

Federal Provincial Municipal, Aboriginal and

non-profit organizations

Training and employment 7 17 34

Economic development

Hanselmann (2001: 13–17)

1 11 2


In their case study of Aboriginal economic development in Winnipeg, Loxley and Wien

(2003: 236–238) noted that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) has emphasised

greater accessibility to mainstream employment for Aboriginal residents through a dual

strategy of developing partnerships with major employers in order to help them achieve a

more representative labour force, and using human rights and employment equity

legislation to file human rights complaints to increase Aboriginal representation. They

indicate that the AMC has particularly focussed on Aboriginal employment in government

positions, and that in Manitoba, Aboriginal representation in federal and provincial

government positions is higher than Aboriginal representation in the Manitoba labour force.

Loxley and Wien (2003: 238) concluded that: “The employment equity and employment

approach has, therefore, yielded solid accomplishments and the groundwork has been laid

for greater Aboriginal representation in the public and private sector labour force”.

It is difficult to access data to evaluate whether the emphasis by the AMC in Manitoba

has resulted in more success in creating Aboriginal employment than efforts in other

provinces. However, it seems clear from the data presented in the earlier section that

equity initiatives have not resulted in substantially narrowing the gap between Aboriginal

and non-Aboriginal urban populations to date, in all of Canada.

4.3.2. Developing urban Aboriginal economies

Other initiatives to improve the socio-economic situation of urban Aboriginal people

have emphasised the development of distinct Aboriginal economies. One of these

initiatives has to do with urban reserves. Two others are identified by Loxley and Wien

(2003) and they include the incubator approach and community economic development

(see also RCAP, 1996: 817–818). I describe each of these briefly.

4.3.2.1. Urban reserves. Approximately one-quarter of all reserves in Canada are found

within or near CMA boundaries (Frood, 1999: xiv). Many have developed enterprises that

attempt to take advantage of urban markets. In Saskatchewan, for example, three First

Nations—Whitecap Dakota First Nation, Muskeg Cree Nation and the Lac La Ronge

Indian Band—are partners in the $4-million Dakota Dunes Golf and Country Club venture

28 km southeast of Saskatoon. Recently, a number of First Nations have successfully

established reserves in urban areas. Most of these reserves have been established in

Saskatchewan where bands have purchased urban lands under the Treaty Land Entitlement

Process (TLE), established to resolve the shortfall in land allocated to First Nations

pursuant to Treaty promises. Most First Nations have used this opportunity to purchase

office buildings or to develop enterprises that generate an income for the First Nations,

rather than for residential purposes. Businesses on these reserves are tax exempt because

of the status of reserves under the Indian Act. However, the First Nation enters into an

agreement with the municipality to pay for services in lieu of taxes (Dust, 1995a; Barron

and Garcea, 1999). The Saskatchewan experience has also received attention in other

provinces. The City of Winnipeg’s (2003: 11) First Steps. Municipal Aboriginal Pathways

document, for example, promised that the city will encourage economic development by

working to “facilitate the fair and equitable resolution of the [TLE] process by negotiating

comprehensive Municipal Development and Service Agreements with eligible First

Nations”.


Urban reserves, either existing reserves near or within municipal boundaries or newly

created reserves, create a number of challenges for municipalities. Some of these

challenges were addressed at a 1994 conference on urban Aboriginal self-government at

Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. One issue is related to the fact that municipal

governments in Canada emphasize uniformity of municipal services to people and

property in order to maintain territorial integrity. Les (1995: 174–175), major of

Chilliwack and second Vice-President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities,

commented that:

The advent of Aboriginal self-government creating autonomous territories within or

adjacent to municipal boundaries raises a number of concerns. Services standards,

development priorities or regulatory objectives may not be shared, the municipal tax

base may be compromised, and the potential need to supply unique services to

particular groups within the municipal area may impact on municipal administration

and finances (see also Mountjoy, 1995).

Mountjoy (1995: 144), Manager of Social Development, City of Regina, indicated that

the First Nations and city government often did not understand the issues confronting the

other party.

[R]ecently the Piapot Indian First Nation brought forward a proposal regarding our

casino-location decision. They argued job creation, crime, and general Aboriginal

development issues, but could not answer any of the city’s questions about such issues

as the impact on assessment, increase of tax base, and the loss of taxes, and they failed

to know about our relationship with the Exhibition Association. If the situation had

been reversed, the city would, no doubt, have been equally wide of the mark.

Municipal officials involved in negotiations about urban reserves have recognised the

tensions, but in successful cases there was a commitment to negotiate through them. Dust

(1995b: 185), a lawyer involved in negotiations about urban reserves in Saskatchewan

described these negotiations.

In order for negotiations to work, both sides must come to the table, and both sides

must be willing to make some compromise, or at least meet each other part way. It

is our experience that at some point in these negotiations each side faces a

fundamental reality and each side makes a key compromise. From the

municipality’s side, the key is the recognition of and respect for the fact of

Aboriginal jurisdiction and an acceptance of a loss of control..From the First

Nation’s side, the key is the recognition of and respect for local governments as the

legitimate elected leadership of the non-Aboriginal community and the acceptance

by the First Nations that they cannot exist and operate in isolation from this local

community (Dust, 1995b: 185).

Urban reserves can serve as spaces where Aboriginal culture within the city can be

cultivated through daily commercial and service activities if not explicit cultural events

(Barron and Garcea, 1999: 281). They also serve a symbolic function, symbolising

Aboriginal empowerment, the will and capacity to retain a distinct place in

Canadian society, and the potential for ‘harmonious coexistence’ between Aboriginal


and non-Aboriginal society in a shared urban community (Barron and Garcea, 1999:

289–290). However, the mandate of urban reserves is most often derived from the goals of

First Nations based in rural areas, and revenue derived from these reserves has been

directed to reserve economies primarily. According to Loxley and Wien (2003), urban

Aboriginal people who are not associated with a collective land base face the greatest

challenge to economic development. They noted:

In our view, it is this more dispersed urban Aboriginal population without a land or

reserve base that faces the most challenging obstacles to economic development,

particularly that portion concentrated in the more low-income areas (Loxley and

Wien, 2003: 223).

They identified two additional strategies for economic development for this dispersed

population—the incubator approach and community economic development—based

largely on the history of Aboriginal organizations in Winnipeg

4.3.2.2. Incubator approach. The incubator approach emphasises the economic

advantages to be gained from providing a variety of Aboriginal economic functions

from a central location, preferably under one roof. First introduced by Fullham (1981), this

approach argued that Aboriginal businesses and organisations could benefit from

proximity, shared space, reduced overhead costs, access to services and clientele, and

access to management expertise. According to Loxley and Wien (2003), this approach has

had a continuing influence on Aboriginal economic development in Winnipeg, with

probably the best example being the currently operating Aboriginal Centre. In 1992, the

Aboriginal Council, an urban-based organisation representing all Aboriginal people in

Winnipeg, purchased the CPR station in north Winnipeg near the downtown. By 1999,

extensive renovations had been completed and the Centre was fully occupied. Tenants

included Aboriginal services, Aboriginal businesses, and non-Aboriginal entities

providing services to the local community, for example a post office, legal aid office,

and human resources offices of government.

Loxley and Wien (2003: 230–231) pointed out some of the areas in which this

initiative is vulnerable. First, the Centre is highly dependent on state funding for

rental income. Second, the advantages of concentration also have some accompanying

disadvantages, because the economic development benefits accrue to one neighbour-

hood. Third, there has been less business development associated with the Centre than

was initially expected. Finally, the concentration of Aboriginal organizations with

different mandates and agendas can create turmoil and pose management difficulties.

Nevertheless they noted that the Centre “represents a considerable accomplishment for

the Aboriginal community of Winnipeg. The Aboriginal Centre will undoubtedly

become a focal point for the community and represents the realization of an idea long

in the making”.

4.3.2.3. Community economic development. In Winnipeg, a series of principles for

community economic development emerged from two training programs for Aboriginal

economic development officers sponsored by the Manitoba Metis Foundation and the

Association of Manitoba Chiefs. These programs produced a number of well-trained


Aboriginal staff who had a continuing influence on Aboriginal community economic

development in Winnipeg. The objectives of community development were to increase

the self-reliance of inner city residents and organizations. Loosely affiliated under the

umbrella of Winnipeg Native Family Economic Development (WNFED) this group

established a number of initiatives over the years, including an Aboriginal workers’ co-op

operating a grocery store (Neechi Foods Co-op), a housing co-operative (Payuk Inter-Tribal

Co-op), and a daycare (Nee Gawn Ah Kai Day Care). The principles guiding these

developments included the attempt to use local goods and services in the local economy

with the local investment of profits in order to minimize leakages from the inner city and to

strengthen inner city networks. These initiatives also emphasized long-term employment to

reduce resident’s reliance on social assistance, and local decision-making in order to

strengthen community self-determination (Tupone, 2001; Loxley and Wien, 2003: 232–

236).

The WNFED approach addresses some of the weaknesses of the incubator approach,

particularly its dependence on state funding and its more geographically limited effects.

However, it also has some vulnerabilities. The poverty of inner city populations sets limits

on the development and viability of business development. A second vulnerability has to

do with the shortage of business development training in the Aboriginal population, in

order to initiate and to administer these projects.

4.4. Conclusion

In terms of aggregate measures, urban Aboriginal people are clearly on the economic

margins of urban society. However, averages suggest that urban Aboriginal people occupy

much the same socio-economic position in comparison to non-Aboriginal people in 2001

as they did in 1981. In other words, if we view marginalisation as a process, these

indicators suggest that the urban Aboriginal population as a whole is not increasingly

marginalised in cities. However, levels of marginalisation seem to vary in different cities,

and it may be that there is polarisation within the urban Aboriginal population—that some

individuals are successful, while others are experiencing increasing deprivation. Definitive

answers to questions about polarisation are beyond the scope of this paper, but it is

important to keep in mind that processes may vary for different places and different

Aboriginal sub-groups. Nevertheless, strategies for incorporating urban Aboriginal people

into the urban economy, and for developing distinct Aboriginal economies do not seem to

have been effective in increasing urban Aboriginal economic success relative to non-

Aboriginal urban populations.

Linkages between Aboriginal economic development and self-government are

complex. US research on reservation economic development has found that, capable

institutions of self-government, that ‘match underlying [Aboriginal] norms of legitimacy

and propriety’ are prerequisites for economic development (Kalt, 1993: 48). At the same

time, research on self-government in Canada has emphasised the importance of economic

independence from non-Aboriginal government support (Prince and Abele, 2003). This

suggests that economic independence is a prerequisite for self-government. While both of

these principles were developed with respect to Aboriginal communities with a land base,

they may also apply in urban areas. At the same time, increasing employment in


government and community services seems to be a trend in urban Aboriginal labour force

participation, and it may contribute to both of these principles. The role for planners and

municipal governments may be to encourage Aboriginal participation in civic and

community services employment, to utilise municipal tools (property development

functions and other financial levers) to support economic development projects involving

Aboriginal people, and to support the development of Aboriginal organisations by

involving them in municipal planning and decision-making.


CHAPTER 5

Urban Aboriginal populations: isolation or community?

The weakening of community bonds and the loss of institutional life are themes in

contemporary work on urban marginality. Much of the contemporary focus on building

cohesive cities has emphasised the role of community relationships of trust and

participation in civic institutions (Kearns and Forrest, 2000). For Schweitzer (1999: 2 cited

in Kearns and Forrest, 2000: 1010) the idea of a healthy community

implies the presence of a vibrant social infrastructure consisting of numerous formal

and informal connections and organizations which are held together by the social

fabric of the community. Social networks link organizations and individuals with

each other and enable the community to function in a healthy way.

The loss of this infrastructure has been associated in the literature with the overlapping

effects of exclusion from labour markets and the emergence of ghetto areas in

contemporary cities. Wilson (1987, 1996), who is most clearly associated with this

work, described how the movement of employment opportunities to suburban locations

drew away working and middle class families, leaving behind an increasingly isolated and

politically powerless ‘underclass’. Inner city disinvestment, and growing welfare and

illicit economies in response to the lack of employment opportunities resulted in the

collapse of public institutions. Putnam (1996) argued that poor neighbourhoods often lack

the necessary qualities of help, mutuality and trust which could assist in their regeneration.

Wacquant (1999: 1644) described these connected elements:

Along with territorial stigmatisation comes a sharp diminution of the sense of

communality that used to characterise older working-class locales. Now the

neighbourhood no longer offers a shield against the insecurities and pressure of the

outside world; it is no longer a familiar and reaffirming landscape suffused with

collective meanings and forms of mutuality. It turns into an empty space of

competitions and conflict, a danger-filled battleground for the daily contest of

survival and escape. This weakening of territorially based communal bonds, in turn,

fuels a retreat into the sphere of privatised consumption and strategies of distancing

(“I am not one of them”) that further undermine local solidarities and confirm

deprecatory perceptions of the neighbourhood (see also Hughes, 1989; Jenson,

2000; Buck, 2001).

These perspectives have their critics. Some researchers focussing on social cohesion

see the dissolution of community bonds and the irrelevance of institutions as being

associated with urban life as a whole, and not only with marginalised communities

(Castells, 1997; Fukuyama, 1999). Other scholars found evidence of rich informal

networks and exchange systems as individuals found ways of coping with unemployment

in innovative ways (e.g. Stack, 1974; Williams and Windebank, 1998).

The intent in this chapter is not to evaluate the general accuracy of these models, but to

explore whether there is evidence that urban Aboriginal people experience the dissolution


of community bonds and the absence of community institutional structures in urban areas.

This chapter approaches the topic in several ways: through a review of material that

assesses a sense of belonging and the existence of informal networks among urban

Aboriginal people, and by a case study of Aboriginal institutions in two cities—Winnipeg

and Edmonton. First, however, there is a section that describes challenges to building

Aboriginal communities in urban areas.

5.1. Challenges to building urban Aboriginal communities

Aboriginal people face a number of challenges in building community in urban areas.

Clearly, Aboriginal poverty is a factor of everyday life for many Aboriginal people in

urban areas. Many urban Aboriginal residents do not possess the financial resources to

support institutional development. Moreover, many are faced with enormous daily

challenges in trying to obtain an adequate standard of living, which leaves little time or

energy for participation in community building. However, widely held ideas about the

incompatibility of urban and Aboriginal cultures, and the diversity of urban Aboriginal

populations also create challenges. These ideas contributed to the location of reserves, the

removal of Metis people away from urban boundaries, and the organisation of government

services for urban Aboriginal people, as the chapter on urbanisation argued. They also

underlie fundamental assumptions about the place of Aboriginal cultures in cities.

There is a long history in western thought that sees urban and Aboriginal cultures as

incompatible (Berkhoffer, 1979; Goldie, 1989; Francis, 1992). These ideas were reflected

in writing that attempted to understand the significance of increasing Aboriginal

urbanisation at the turn of the century. The decision to migrate to cities was interpreted to

mean that Aboriginal people rejected their traditional cultures and wished to assimilate. In

fact, Aboriginal and urban cultures were perceived to be incompatible, and a common

theme in the literature on Aboriginal urbanization even in the 1970s, was that Aboriginal

culture presented a major barrier to successful adjustment to urban society. Echoing earlier

Chicago School ideas of marginality, this perspective assumed that, upon migration, the

‘cultural values from Native culture’ would remain only ‘until the values of the larger

culture’ could be adopted (Indian Eskimo Association of Canada, 1962: 13). As a result,

government organisations with a mandate to address the situation of urban Aboriginal

residents emphasised integration (Peters, 2002).

Ideas about the incompatibility of urban and Aboriginal cultures have not dissolved.

Newhouse and Peters (2003: 247) argued that writing about Aboriginal people in Canada

most often associates the idea of Aboriginal community with rural and reserve Aboriginal

settlements. In the city, Aboriginal populations are seen as heterogeneous, individual, and

isolated.

The idea of Aboriginal community has been little explored in the literature.Urban

Aboriginal research has tended to focus upon the experiences of individuals and

their adjustment to urban life, paying only incidental attention to community.

Presenters to the Urban Roundtable of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples

talked about the challenges Aboriginal people face in urban areas because cities

represented “an environment that is usually indifferent and often hostile to Aboriginal


cultures” (1993: 2). The Commission (1996: 531) noted that, “Following three decades of

urbanization, development of a strong community still remains largely incomplete. Many

urban Aboriginal people are impoverished and unorganized”. The Commission itself has

been criticized for associating Aboriginal cultures and rights primarily with reserves and

rural areas, and associating cities with places of loss of culture and community for

Aboriginal people (Andersen and Denis, 2003; Cairns, 2000), although I think this view

overstates the Commission’s perspectives.

Another source of challenge comes from the cultural diversity of urban Aboriginal

people. Clatworthy’s (2000: xiii) study of the composition of urban Aboriginal

populations in Winnipeg demonstrated their diverse cultural origins and legal status,

and concluded that these characteristics created a “barrier to social cohesion, culture and

language retention and the development of a shared sense of community”. In his report for

the Native Council of Canada (now the Congress of Aboriginal People), Morse (1993: 88)

pointed out that:

In the urban setting, asking the individual members of the potentially very diverse

urban group, each with their own unique identity, traditions, language and culture, to

put aside their differences and build a new community is a formidable task. It

requires the rejection of the long history of federal intervention, and for the urban

Aboriginal population to come to terms with their diversity.

Moreover, as the chapter on urbanisation demonstrated, many Aboriginal people who

live in urban areas retain ties with their non-urban communities of origin, and these ties

represent an important component of their cultural identities. First Nations people with ties

to their reserves of origin, especially, often call on reserve-based organisations for

assistance in the city. The challenges of diversity occur in the context of a political

environment, which has not supported urban community building. Representatives to the

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples’ National Round Table on Aboriginal Urban

Issues pointed out that “any sort of co-operative urban Aboriginal movement has been

hamstrung by scarce resources, fragmented populations, unclear mandates, and a lack

of.federal or provincial encouragement and support” (Royal Commission on Aboriginal

Peoples, 1993: 79). For urban Aboriginal people, then, the implications of marginality for

creating community institutions, may be reinforced by additional challenges.

5.2. Community ties: sense of belonging and informal networks

This section draws evidence about urban Aboriginal people’s sense of belonging and

informal experiences of community from several different sources. Unfortunately, the

recent Statistics Canada General Social Surveys that focus on volunteering and social

cohesion do not support a separate analysis for Aboriginal participants. A recent survey of

over 600 Aboriginal people living in urban areas by EKOS Research Associates (2003)

was commissioned by eight federal government departments to examine impressions of

the performance of the federal government and to assess their opinions about various

issues. The survey was not a random sample, and Aboriginal residents in prairie cities were

over-represented. Nevertheless it provides some interesting information about respon-

dent’s sense of community ties.

Table 20

Proportion feeling a strong sense of belonging

Aboriginal urban (%) Aboriginal on-reserve (%) General population (%)

Your family 85 87 91

Canada 62 56 81

Your province 54 46 71

Your first nation 69 *

Other Aboriginal people

in your city

49 * *

Your Native group

in your city

48 * *

Your ethnic group * * 51

Your town 47 * *

* No information available. Source: EKOS Research Associates, Inc. (2003: 41).


One set of questions explored participant’s sense of belonging to various groups and

entities. These results were compared to answers from individuals living on reserves, and

to similar questions from another study of the general population. Table 20 describes the

proportion of individuals who indicated that they felt a strong sense of belonging to

particular groups. The results show that, while attachment to family is high across all

groups, Aboriginal participants generally felt less attachment to Canada and to their

province than participants in the general population. Fewer Aboriginal participants in

urban areas felt a strong sense of belonging to their Aboriginal group than on-reserve

residents felt to their First Nation. However, the proportion of urban Aboriginal residents

who felt a strong sense of belonging to an Aboriginal group in the city is quite similar to

the responses from the general population with respect to their ethnic group. In other

words, while movement from rural to urban locations may reflect or cause a decrease in

sense of belonging to a cultural group of origin, there is not much difference between

Aboriginal and other urban residents. Aboriginal people do not stand out in terms of this

measure of isolation from their cultural community of origin.

While there does not seem to be published material about Aboriginal people’s social

networks within urban areas, some of the work on Aboriginal household structures speaks

to these questions. There was a considerable body of work on urban First Nations people

from the 1970s and 1980s that suggested that Aboriginal households in urban areas

contracted and expanded to meet the needs of kin and friends (Denton, 1970; Nagler,

1970; Dosman, 1972; Guillemin, 1975; Mooney, 1979; Meadows, 1980; Baril, 1981;

Larson, 1983). This phenomenon was interpreted in a variety of ways in this literature.

Some studies suggested that these patterns represented and created an inability to cope

with the demands of life in the city. Other studies emphasized their role as strategies, based

on a sharing ethic in Aboriginal communities, for coping with migration, poverty, insecure

housing, and the need for access to urban services. There does not seem to be comparable

research available for contemporary urban Aboriginal people. However, two recent studies

suggest that many urban Aboriginal households continue to act as a community safety net.

A recent longitudinal study of Aboriginal migrants to Winnipeg found that for many,

shared accommodation was a strategy for coping with housing costs (Distasio, 2004).


Migrants who had been in the city longer were more likely to arrange their own

accommodation, but many who relied on friends and kin for accommodation felt that this

was a positive element of their housing situation. A 2000 survey of homeless individuals in

Saskatoon, Regina and Prince Albert found that 44% were living with friends and family.

While this information is anecdotal, it does indicate that Aboriginal people have in the

past and continue in the present to experience community in the city, as defined by the

practice of extending assistance in the form of shelter. If these practices reflect cultural

ethics of sharing in the context of poverty, they can create difficulty for municipal

standards with respect to crowding and household composition. Aboriginal people living

in public housing may face particular challenges accommodating expectations about

shared living space, and standards about the number of people who can live in a residential

unit. This may be an example where Aboriginal cultural values are denied by municipal

planning practices.

5.3. Urban Aboriginal institutions

Against historic notions of the incompatibility of Aboriginal and urban cultures,

Aboriginal people work to build institutions that support culture and community in urban

areas. Some quotations from the presentations made to the Public Hearings of the Royal

Commission on Aboriginal People illustrate the general message of this work. For

example, Van Heest (1993: 14), working in a pre-employment program of Aboriginal

women in Vancouver, told the commissioners:

Today we live in the modern world and we find that a lot of our people who come

into the urban setting are unable to live in the modern world without their traditional

values. So we started a program which we call “Urban Images for First Nations

People in the Urban Setting” and what we do is we work in this modern day with

modern day people and give them traditional values so that they can continue on

with their life in the city.

Chartrand (1992: 565), President of the National Association of Friendship Centres,

had this to say.

Aboriginal culture in the cities is threatened in much the same way as Canadian

culture is threatened by American culture, and it therefore requires a similar

commitment to its protection. Our culture is at the heart of our people, and without

awareness of Aboriginal history, traditions and ceremonies, we are not whole people,

and our communities lose their strength.Cultural education also works against the

alienation that the cities hold for our people. Social activities bring us together and

strengthen the relationship between people in areas where those relationships are an

important safety net for people who feel left out by the mainstream.

Chartrand told the Commission that the most effective way to solve problems

Aboriginal people face in the city was to catch them before they start through

strengthening individual’s identities and awareness of the urban Aboriginal community.

Instead of seeing Aboriginal cultures and urban life as incompatible, presenters to the

Public Hearings of the Royal Commission saw vibrant urban Aboriginal cultures as


important elements of Aboriginal people’s success in cities. They emphasized the need to

engage in processes of consensus and community building in urban areas.

Newhouse (2000), head of Native Studies at Trent University, argued that the

urbanization of the Aboriginal population is occurring along with the reinforcement of

cultural identities. In other words, these phenomena are not mutually exclusive. At the

same time, Aboriginal cultures in urban areas are not the simple transplanting of non-

urban cultures. Instead, Newhouse noted that Aboriginal people are reformulating western

institutions and practices to support Aboriginal cultures and identities, so that Aboriginal

people can survive as distinct people in contemporary societies. These themes are also

found in US research that suggests that, while moving to cities presents a challenge to

Aboriginal cultural identities, it also presents an opportunity for dynamic and resilient

innovations (Danziger, 1991; LaGrand, 2003).

Community building through the establishment of networks, institutions and collective

identity can enhance political strength and visibility, and provide the support for resilient

cultural identities. Research in US cities suggests that urban Aboriginal institutions form

an important mechanism through which Aboriginal people negotiate a collective identity.

Based on 19 years of interactions with Los Angeles Indian organisations, Weibel-Orlando

(1999: 80) argued that:

[Institutions are] structural indicators of community cohesiveness, completeness and

inclusiveness, and are characterized by regular, repetitive, grounded activities

invoked as cultural tradition.[They are] the social mechanism that binds the

otherwise heterogeneous and dispersed Los Angeles Indians into an entity they

recognize as community.

Hanselmann’s (2002a: 6) recent study of prairie cities reported that many urban

Aboriginal people wished to receive programs and services from fellow Aboriginal

people. Aboriginal-controlled social services generally have greater scope in delivering

programs that incorporate Aboriginal principles, beliefs, and traditions, and they create

significant economic benefits for Aboriginal communities (Hylton, 1999: 85–86). In this

way, they can begin to address the pressing poverty of many Aboriginal people living in

cities (Cornell and Kalt, 1992; Rothney, 1992). The development of urban Aboriginal

institutions is also an important component of creating self-government for urban

Aboriginal people, and in this way it addresses their indigeneity. Cassidy’s (1991)

discussion provides a useful definition of self-government in the urban context. He

distinguishes between self-determination, which he defines as the right of a people to be

sovereign within a particular territory, and self-government, which he defines as the ability

of a people to make significant choices about their own political, cultural, economic, and

social affairs, without having sovereignty or experiencing self-determination. While most

urban Aboriginal people do not live in a territory over which they can exercise

sovereignty, there are various self-government arrangements that extend meaningful

levels of control over issues that affect their everyday lives.

Until recently, most of the literature on the nature of and possibilities for Aboriginal

self-government focused on land-based populations (see for example, Penner, 1983; Royal

Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1993: 44). A number of models of urban self-

government for Aboriginal peoples in urban areas have been put forward in recent years.


Many First Nations support the extension of jurisdiction of land-based governments to

urban citizens (Opekokew, 1995). The Native Council of Canada (now the Congress of

Aboriginal Peoples) suggested options including governance over urban reserves or

Aboriginal neighbourhoods, self-determining Aboriginal institutions, and pan-Aboriginal

governing bodies in urban areas (Native Council of Canada, 1993). Tizya (1992: 8)

described an approach where urban residents would fall under the jurisdiction of the First

Nation in whose traditional territory the urban centre lies. Metis organizations placed

governance for urban residents in a structure with urban and rural locals nested in

provincial and national organizations (Young, 1995).

To date, though, most urban Aboriginal people experience self-government through

urban Aboriginal institutions, controlled by Aboriginal people and providing culturally

appropriate and sensitive services. Discussions of self-government through the

development of institutions representing urban Aboriginal populations began several

decades ago (Dunn, 1986; Reeves, 1986; Weinstein, 1986). The Royal Commission on

Aboriginal Peoples subsequently identified the ‘urban communities of interest’ model as a

possible approach to self-government for urban Aboriginal people. It defined ‘community

of interest’ as a “collectivity that emerges in an urban setting, includes people of diverse

Aboriginal origins, and ‘creates itself’ through voluntary association” (Royal Commission

on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996: 584).

Friendship Centres represented the first Aboriginal organisations focussed on the needs of

Aboriginal migrants to Canadian cities. Established as a referral service for urban Aboriginal

people, the first centre opened in Winnipeg in April 1959. By 1962 there were similar

developments in 19 urban areas. With core funding from the Citizenship Branch, the federal

government saw the major role of Friendship Centres as facilitating Aboriginal integration

into the institutions of the dominant society (Peters, 2002). This interpretation was contested

by Aboriginal people who noted that mainstream service organisations did not have the skills

or knowledge to provide appropriate assistance, that Aboriginal migrants preferred to

receive assistance from Aboriginal Friendship Centre personnel, and that because of their

lack of knowledge of Aboriginal cultures and circumstances, social service organisations

often referred clients back to Friendship Centres (Standing Committee, 1969; Bear Robe,

1971). While non-Aboriginal people were involved in the operation of Friendship Centres in

some cities in early years, these Centres became increasingly Aboriginally controlled. Many

of the Aboriginal institutions in contemporary cities originally began as Friendship Centre

programs and evolved into independent organisations.

5.4. Urban Aboriginal institutions: case study

The following paragraphs summarise some of the results of a 2002 study that

documented the evolution of Aboriginal service organisations Winnipeg and Edmonton.11

11 The Social Planning Council and the Aboriginal Council in Winnipeg, and the Edmonton Aboriginal Urban

Affairs Committee and the Edmonton Aboriginal Coalition provided assistance. Katherin McArdle, Pamela

McCoy-Jones, and Richard Thompson did the interviews for this project. Chris Andersen, School of Native

Studies, University of Alberta, and Ryan Walker, Queen’s University, Kingston, managed the study in these two

locations. All of these contributions are gratefully acknowledged.


The study compared selected characteristics of these organisations to the results of a similar

study conducted almost a decade earlier, in 1993 (Clatworthy et al., 1995a).12 Both studies

described organisations whose focus was primarily on urban Aboriginal populations, owned

or controlled by Aboriginal people, with substantial autonomy from governments and

provincial and other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal organizations.13 Because the focus of

the study was on identifying institutions of self-government, the study excluded Aboriginal

businesses. As a result, organizations like Neechi, described in Chapter 4, are not included in

this analysis. This is not, therefore, a full picture of the ‘institutional completeness’ (Breton,

1964) of an urban cultural group. The results are interesting, though, in the context of the

frameworks of marginalisation and indigeneity in contemporary Canadian cities. They also

demonstrate the ways urban Aboriginal organisations, and by implication urban Aboriginal

communities, vary between urban areas.

5.4.1. Change over time

Clearly, there has been growth in urban Aboriginal organizations in these cities since

the early 1990s (Table 21) Comparing this study to Clatworthy et al’s (1995a) research,

shows that the number of urban Aboriginal organizations in Winnipeg increased from

24 in 1993 to 28 in 2002, and from 7 to 15 in Edmonton in the same time period.

Organizations also grew in terms of the number of clients they served. In 1993, Winnipeg

organisations served 5563 clients monthly, approximately 15.8% of Winnipeg’s 1991

Aboriginal identity population. In 2002, the interviews reported that 9948 clients were

served monthly, representing almost one-fifth (17.8%) of the Winnipeg 2001 Aboriginal

identity population. Since we were unable to obtain client numbers for some organisations,

these statistics underestimate Winnipeg Aboriginal community participation in these

organisations.14 In Edmonton in 1993, Aboriginal organizations served 3056 clients, or

approximately 10% of Edmonton’s Aboriginal identity population. In 2002, they served

9465 clients, representing almost one-quarter (23.1%) of the Edmonton Aboriginal

identity population. These estimates are similar to Weibel-Orlando’s (1999: 41) finding

that approximately 20% of the Los Angeles Aboriginal community regularly participated

in Aboriginal institutional life in that city.

The majority of organizations were less than a decade old in both cities in 1993; by

2002 the majority were 10 years old and older. Winnipeg had more older organisations,

12 Organisations that potentially met the criteria were identified from a variety of lists and with the assistance of

key individuals knowledgeable about Aboriginal organizations in the city. A telephone call confirmed which

organisations met the screening criteria, and key representatives from these organisations were interviewed. We

were unable to interview representatives from several organisations, and we attempted to fill in missing

information from published materials.13 This definition excluded organisations that provided services to Aboriginal people as part of a broader mandate

for urban populations. It also excluded urban offices of provincial or national Aboriginal organizations located in

the city, but that had as their constituency provincial or national Aboriginal populations. However, some

provincial organisations had created institutions that attempted to meet the needs of their urban members, and

these were included if they met the criteria listed above.14 It is also important to recognize that some organisations are not service organisations (for example the

Aboriginal Centre, the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, and the MMF-Winnipeg Region) and therefore there are

no client figures for these organizations.

Table 21

Comparison of Winnipeg and Edmonton urban Aboriginal organizations, 1993 and 2002

Winnipeg Edmonton

1993 (%) 2002 (%) 1993 (%) 2002 (%)

Age of organization at time of interview

Less than 3 years 13.6 3.6 0.0a 6.7

3–5 years 18.2 10.7 28.6 20.0

6–9 years 36.4 14.3 28.6 13.3

10–19 years 18.2 39.3 14.3 33.3

20 or more 13.6 32.1 28.6 20.0

Main type of service providedb

Adult education/employment training 11.9 13.0 22.5 11.6

Religious/cultural/spiritual 19.3 20.5 12.5 11.6

Housing 11.9 11.1 10.0 4.7

Economic/Community development 4.8 5.6 7.5 9.3

Youth programming/counselling 16.6 14.8 17.5 16.3

Child and family services 7.1 13.0 10.0 19.9

Health services/substance abuse 11.9 13.0 17.5 16.3

Child care 4.8 3.7 2.5 2.3

Correctional services/programs 7.1 5.6 5.0 2.3

Political Advocacy 4.8 1.9 0 0

Street patrols 2.4 0 0 0

Seniors services 0 0 0 4.7

Type of organization(s) assisting with formationc

Other urban Aboriginal 31.8 34.4 28.6 33.3

Provincial Aboriginal political 18.2 15.6 42.9 33.3

National Aboriginal NGO 4.5 6.3 0 0

Non-Aboriginal NGO 4.5 6.3 0 13.3

Non-Aboriginal government 9.1 0 14.3 6.7

Individuals not representing an Aborigi-

nal organization

31.8 37.5 0 20.3

Number of organizations 24 28 7 15

a Date of formation was not available for one organisation.b Many organisations indicated they had programs in more than one area. Percentages represent proportions of

all areas mentioned.c Many organisations mentioned more than one assisting organization. Percentages represent proportions of all

organisations mentioned.


with the Indian Metis Friendship Centre established in 1959, and two housing corporations

and four other organisations established in the 1970s and still in existence. In Edmonton

the Canadian Native Friendship Centre, established in 1962, was still in existence, but no

other organizations established in the 1970 were in operation in 2002. A full list of

Winnipeg organisations is attached to provide more details about history and

characteristics of institutional development in that city (Table 22).

5.4.2. Type of service provided

The range of services provided in both cities was extensive in 1993, and had expanded

by 2002. However, what is particularly interesting is the emergence in Winnipeg of

Table 22

Self-governing Aboriginal institutions in Winnipeg, 2002

Organization Primary focus Year established

A Bah Nu Gee Child Care Child Care 1984

Aboriginal Centre of Winnipeg Community Development 1991

Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg Political and Advocacy 1990

Aboriginal health and wellness centre Health 1994

Aboriginal Learning and Literacy

Foundation

Education 1990

Aiyawin Corporation Housing 1983

Anishinabe Oway-Ishi Employment 1989

CAHRD/NES Employment Training 1983

Circle of Life Thunderbird House Religious/Cultural 2000

Indian Family Centre Inc. Religious/Social Service 1973

Indian Metis Friendship Centre Cultural/Social Service 1959

Kanata Housing Housing 1982

Kateri Tekakwitha Parish Aboriginal Church 1978

Kinew Housing Housing 1970

Lord Selkirk Women’s Group Youth Services 1997

Ma Mawi Chi Itati Centre Child and family services 1984

Manitoba Association for Native

Languages

Native Languages 1985

Metis Resource Centre Cultural 1995

MMF—Winnipeg Region Political

Native Clan Inmates 1970

Native United Church Religious 2000

Native Women’s Transition Centre Women’s Resources 1979

Nee-Dawn-Ah-Kai Day Care Centre Child Care 1986

Ndinawemaaganag Endaawaad Youth Shelter 1993

Neeginan Development Corporation Community Development 1998

Original Women’s Network Women’s Resources

Owitisookaageedi Youth Organization Aboriginal Youth 2000

Payuk Inter-Tribal Housing Co-op Housing 1985

Turtle Island Community Resource

Centre

Community Development 1992

Wahbung Abinoonjiiaq Family Violence 1995

Source: Peters (2002).


organizations that focused on advocacy, political representation and community

development rather than on service delivery. The Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg

(ACW), formed in 1991, is a political organization dedicated to improving the life of all

Aboriginal people in the city (Munroe, 2002). The Council was central in purchasing

Winnipeg’s CPR station in the heart of the core area and bringing under one roof a variety

of Native organizations. Named the Aboriginal Centre, this building provided a focal point

for the urban Aboriginal community. The council was also instrumental in building the

Circle of Life Thunderbird House across the street—a striking building that acts as a

cultural and spiritual facility. There are plans to expand the Thunderbird House complex

by adding housing and other facilities. ACW is not affiliated with any of the Aboriginal

political groups in the province. The Aboriginal Council has no counterpart in Edmonton.


Winnipeg appears to be a pioneer in the development of urban-based Aboriginal

representative organisations.15 In most cities, the development of organizations is closely

tied to government priorities, reflected in government program funding. In Winnipeg,

organizations have developed independently of government programs, to coordinate

services and spearhead important initiatives (Loxley, 1994). While these organizations

still depend on government support, they are not generated by government program

priorities to the same extent. An organization similar to the Aboriginal Council of

Winnipeg is under consideration in Toronto—the Aboriginal Peoples Council of Toronto

(Report of the Steering Committee, 2002).

5.4.3. Type of organization assisting with formation

An examination of the impetus for the formation of urban Aboriginal organisations in

the two cities clearly illustrates some of their important differences. In recent years in both

cities, other organisations have taken over the role of Friendship Centres in generating new

programs and organisations. In Winnipeg, the Aboriginal Council played a particularly

influential role. While provincial Aboriginal political organizations, particularly

provincial Metis organizations were important in both cities, they played a larger role

in Edmonton than in Winnipeg. In Edmonton the Metis Nation of Alberta was mentioned

most often for its involvement, but several organisations also developed from a co-

operative initiative between the Metis Nation of Alberta and representatives of provincial

Treaties 6 and 8 organisations.

Individuals not representing an Aboriginal organisation were important in both

cities. However, there were historic variations in their role. A core of active Aboriginal

people living in Winnipeg seems to have been instrumental in the establishment of

a wide variety of organizations over several decades (see also Loxley, 1994). In

Edmonton, individuals establishing organisations seemed more likely to be Aboriginal

professionals responding to recent government programs developed to meet the needs

of urban Aboriginal people.

In Winnipeg, then, the development of urban Aboriginal institutions has been more of a

local, grassroots phenomenon. In Edmonton urban Aboriginal institutions have closer

connections with government and provincial Aboriginal organisation priorities. An

exploration of the implications of these differences for the identities of urban Aboriginal

residents is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, it is likely that in Winnipeg,

Aboriginal identities are more closely linked to the urban Aboriginal community, while in

Edmonton, identities may be more closely linked to provincial First Nations and Metis

groups. The emergence of an urban representative body in Winnipeg has also contributed

to struggles about who represents urban Aboriginal people, with the Aboriginal Council of

Winnipeg, and Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (the First Nations provincial political

15 In Vancouver, the Urban Representative Body of Aboriginal Nations (URBAN) was formed in 1990 as an

urban-based umbrella organization representing more than 60 mostly Aboriginal societies and organizations

(URBAN, n.d.). It has since dissolved. Negotiations are currently underway to create an urban Aboriginal Peoples

Council (Todd, 2000). URBAN was different from the Aboriginal Council, because First Nations and Metis

groups in the province were involved in its formation. In this way, URBAN was not a body representing primarily

urban Aboriginal people.


organisation) and the Manitoba Metis Federation (the Metis provincial political

organisation) competing to deliver services for urban Aboriginal people in that city

(Misquadis v. Canada, 2003).

5.5. Conclusion

The poverty of Aboriginal peoples in Canadian cities is high, and the colonial legacy

means that they face additional challenges to building community in urban areas. While

there is a paucity of research on urban Aboriginal people’s sense of community in

urban areas, the materials that are available suggest that, while urban Aboriginal people

on reserves feel more of a sense of belonging to their community, Aboriginal people in

cities feel as much as a sense of belonging to their group in the city as ethnic residents

do. Moreover, there is a culture of mutual assistance through shared accommodation

that appears to persist in contemporary urban Aboriginal households. Wacquant’s

(1999: 1644) depiction of retreat into private worlds, among marginalised popu-

lations—the sense that “I am not one of them”—does not describe the situation of all

urban Aboriginal residents. There are also growing numbers of Aboriginal institutions,

focussed on urban populations, serving increasingly larger proportions of the Aboriginal

population, and addressing more and more activities. The sense of belonging,

development of urban networks, and emergence of urban Aboriginal organisations

contradict the legacy which views Aboriginal cultures, communities and values

as incompatible with, or inappropriate in, the urban industrial milieu. These

characteristics also make it difficult to apply expectations about community life

among marginalised populations, particularly expectations derived from US inner cities,

in a straightforward way.

Part of the difference probably emerges from the emphasis on indigeneity as a

principle that organises Aboriginal people’s relationships with governments in all

areas—urban and non-urban. Since the 1950s, when Aboriginal people migrated to

urban areas in increasing numbers and governments felt a responsibility to respond to

this population movement, Aboriginal people have emphasised the need for

the provision of services by Aboriginal people, for Aboriginal people (Peters, 2002).

The growth of urban Aboriginal organisations is not only a reflection of

government concerns about a marginalised urban populations, it also reflects the

activism of urban Aboriginal people. This is not to say that Aboriginal institutions exist

without government funding. In fact, most depend heavily on government funding and

this creates concerns about sustainability and the ability to shape aspects of

programming to reflect cultural needs (Opekokew, 1995; Graham and Peters, 2002;

Prince and Abele, 2003). However, the active involvement of urban Aboriginal people

in defining ways to meet the needs of Aboriginal populations is reflected in

developments in Winnipeg, where political representative bodies emerged independent

of government initiatives (although heavily dependent on government funding from a

variety of sources).

The role of self-governing urban Aboriginal institutions in building culture and

community and stimulating economic development and employment provides a strong

rationale for supportive public policy. This was in fact a recommendation of the Royal


Commission on Aboriginal peoples—that all levels of government initiate programs to

increase opportunities to promote Aboriginal cultures in urban areas (1996: 537). Some

of the particular areas that the Commission identified included support for urban

Aboriginal institutions, initiatives concerning languages, and access to land and elders.

At the municipal level, this can mean recognising urban Aboriginal organisations as

representing urban Aboriginal communities and including them in planning and policy

making. It can also mean support for Aboriginal programming in areas that

municipalities initiate. Finally, municipalities have a role in working to bring all

levels of government together on particular initiatives. This was a particular emphasis

in Winnipeg’s (2003) Municipal Aboriginal Pathways plan.

However, the emergence of urban Aboriginal communities may raise some very

difficult issues of representation. While many urban Aboriginal people retain connections

to their rural and reserve communities of origins, some do not, and find community among

other urban Aboriginal people, in urban institutions. Some find community and culture in

both. For public policy, the question of who represents urban Aboriginal people—

provincial First Nations and Metis political organisations or urban political organisations,

is likely to be an increasingly important issue in the future. The case studies of Edmonton

and Winnipeg suggest that the answer to the question of who represents urban Aboriginal

people will vary in different cities.

Finally, there are concrete roles for municipalities in attempting to change public

perceptions about the relationship between Aboriginal cultures and urban life, and in

exploring whether the regulation of household occupancy works against Aboriginal kin

and community values. Many contemporary urban landscapes offer little to valorize

Aboriginal cultures, affirm their relevance to contemporary life, or admit their original

occupancy. There is little recognition that most cities are on Aboriginal peoples’

traditional territories or that urban development may affect places that are important for

spiritual or historic reasons. There are few attempts at historic preservation of significant

sites, which bring the Aboriginal heritage of the lands on which urban areas are built to

public consciousness. There are few streets, parks or buildings named after significant

Aboriginal people, historic or contemporary. Aboriginal heroes do not often appear in

monuments dedicated to their memory. Involving urban Aboriginal organisations in

making Aboriginal people and cultures visible in urban landscapes would signal that they

have a valued place in contemporary urban areas. Similarly, examining the values

underlying regulations concerning occupancy is a step toward admitting that these by-laws

may not be value neutral, and that the needs of Aboriginal ‘publics’ should also be

accommodated in planning practice.


CHAPTER 6

A summary and some observations

This paper attempted to bring together the frameworks of marginalisation and

indigeneity to interpret the situation of urban Aboriginal people in Canada. It explored

settlement patterns, position in the labour force, and community ties and institutions to ask

whether there is evidence that Aboriginal people are marginalised in urban areas. The

theoretical frameworks defining marginality were drawn from a literature on poor and

often racialized populations especially in the US, but also in some European cities. This

paper also examined the implications for Aboriginal realities in urban areas, of

indigeneity, defined by Maaka and Fleras (2000: 89) as the “politicisation of ‘original

occupancy’ as a basis for entitlement and engagement” and incorporating the right of

Aboriginal peoples to govern their own affairs. The following paragraphs summarise the

findings with respect to marginality and indigeneity, and make some suggestions for ways

forward for planning and municipal governments.

The data analysed here suggest that existing frameworks for discussing margin-

alisation, especially those drawn from the US, are not very useful for understanding the

urban Aboriginal situation in Canada. Although urban Aboriginal people are over-

represented in poor neighbourhoods, they do not comprise most of the population in these

areas. Moreover, Aboriginal people are found in all neighbourhoods in urban areas, and

there is no evidence that, over time, they are increasingly relegated to particular

neighbourhoods. Consistently, Aboriginal people are among the poorest urban residents,

despite a variety of approaches to improving their socio-economic conditions over the last

two decades. Disturbingly, the data analysed in this paper showed that the gap between

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people had not narrowed significantly since 1981. At the

same time, though, there is no evidence to suggest increasing socio-economic margin-

alisation, although this element requires more detailed research than the analysis in this

paper could consider. There is also no evidence that urban Aboriginal poverty has resulted

in weak community bonds and the absence of institutional life in cities. Instead, the

available data documented a sense of belonging, active household assistance networks,

and the growing presence of self-governing organizations. All of these elements underline

the argument that models of marginality must take account of the histories and realities of

particular cultural groups, and the social and economic environments of cities in different

countries. Differences between cities also suggest that local processes and outcome vary

substantially.

The original occupancy of Aboriginal people and their expectations that this will make

a difference when they move to cities must feed into the interpretation of the situation of

Aboriginal people in cities. Continued links with reserve and rural communities, which

represent part of Aboriginal traditional territories emphasise the need for linkages between

governments and across spaces for effective responses to Aboriginal situations in urban

areas. Indigeneity can create difficulty for planning, whose focus has been delivering the

same services, in the same way, to all urban residents. In the case of urban Aboriginal

peoples, planning mindsets are challenged to move beyond recognising diversity to


acknowledging Aboriginal rights and desires for self-government. Finding ways to support

self-government is complex, but effective self-governing institutions can play a major role

in economic development for urban Aboriginal people. At the same time, an emphasis on

self-government raises complex questions about who represents urban Aboriginal

people—a question that is even more difficult in cities where there are very diverse

Aboriginal populations.

A brief review of some materials from New Zealand and Australia suggests that there

has been considerable progress there, with respect to planning with Aboriginal people in

the context of marginalisation and indigeneity. Jackson’s (1998: 160) work points out that

it is important to recognise the role of planning in the dispossession of Aboriginal people

of urban lands, and she calls for planners to pay attention to the frameworks of meaning

that underpin this process (see also Johnson, 1994).

Planning, if it is to participate in building new relationships between non-indigenous

and indigenous communities, will have to accept the integrity of Aboriginal cultures’

socio-spatial relationships and their rights to procedural equity and to self-

governance. Counter-colonial strategies are not ones which merely recognise

difference and advocate pluralism, rather they must address and transform the

colonial nature of relations and formations which structure land-use issues and

debates.

Anderson and Jacobs (1997: 19) write about the importance of the ‘Aborginalisation of

urban space’ which they define as “the various processes through which urban developers

and planners self-consciously attempt to incorporate some expression of an Aboriginal

presence” in urban areas. Some examples include the Melbourne ‘Another View Walking

Trail’, and the Aboriginal settlement of Redfern in Sydney (Anderson, 1993; Jacobs, 1996).

While these initiatives may seem like tokenism, and a way of avoiding more substantive

efforts to change social and economic relationships, Jackson (1998) argues they can also

undermine stereotypes that define Aboriginal and urban cultures as contradictory.

There have also been attempts, in these countries, to include Aboriginal residents in

planning decisions. Harmsworth (n.d.), a researcher for a New Zealand environmental

research organisation called Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, showed how Maori

values were consistent with low-impact urban design and development, and argued that

initiatives to include Maori values could also help identify and rectify disparities between

Maori and non-Maori populations and correct the under-representation of Maori in urban

planning and policy. A recent prize-winning book by Mitchell and Walsh (2004) described

how Aboriginal people could work together and put their ideas into practice in planning

processes. Jackson (1998: 337) documented the involvement of Aboriginal people in

planning in Broome, Western Australia. While she found that negotiations between native

land title owners had been “slow, time-consuming and costly”, she also demonstrated that

this involvement had some potential for addressing the economic development of urban

Aboriginal residents because of the possibility that a large area of land could come under

Aboriginal control and ownership. At the same time, her analysis of Aboriginal people and

planners in Darwin, Northern Territory, showed that histories and relationships varied

substantially, with very different outcomes. Similarly, Berkes et al. (2002) found that

the plans of 34 New Zealand local governments were low to moderate in their support of


indigenous rights, but that there were variations across different areas, with local

organisational capability having a positive effect on this support.

This paper has highlighted some specific possibilities for municipal response to

Aboriginal indigeneity and marginalisation in Canada that represent ‘progress in

planning’. Urban planners in other countries may find some lessons here, although it is

important to recognise that historical and judicial contexts may vary. First, it is clear that

addressing Aboriginal issues in urban areas will require the involvement of other levels of

government. This is not meant to suggest that municipalities cannot carve their own path

in developing responses (e.g. City of Winnipeg, 2003). However, municipalities often do

not have the financial capacity to adapt programs and policies to specific cultural groups.

Moreover, many of the issues facing urban Aboriginal people should be addressed at a

geographic scale that exceeds municipal boundaries.

A second aspect of municipal response to urban Aboriginal issues has to do with

incorporating Aboriginal people into planning activities, from developing and governing

land-use planning, to the provision of human services. There will need to be innovative

approaches to this involvement that reflect the needs and capacities of particular urban

Aboriginal populations. For example, Walker (2003) discussed an approach used by a

neighbourhood corporation to involve Winnipeg Aboriginal residents in community

planning through the institution of a ‘First Nations Advisory Council’. This was done in

recognition of the fact that the local Aboriginal population was not present in large

numbers at mainstream neighbourhood consultation venues and that this segment of the

community did nonetheless have ideas and perspectives to share. Recognising the

challenges of representation, it is particularly important to support the development and

legitimacy of urban Aboriginal institutions.

Finally, there are a number of additional steps municipalities and the planning process

can take to recognise Aboriginal realities in cities. One step is to increase Aboriginal

representation in municipal government departments and political bodies. This step can

help to address both poverty and the contribution that Aboriginal cultural perspectives can

make to decision-making. Municipalities can also find ways of acknowledging Aboriginal

original occupancy and continued urban presence through tangible expressions of

Aboriginal cultures in urban landscapes. In this way, the non-Aboriginal public can be

reminded about the continued co-existence of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultures in

urban areas. Finally, planners could critically evaluate cultural assumptions underlying by-

laws and design standards, for example in the regulations governing household

composition. None of these steps are straightforward. However, the benefits of addressing

urban Aboriginal indigeneity will accrue to all urban residents, not only to urban Aboriginal

residents, in the form of better socio-economic conditions and more culturally diverse cities.

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge Oksana Starchenko’s assistance with the mapping associated with

this project. Oksana is a PhD student in the Department of Geography, University of

Saskatchewan. The analysis was supported by financial support from the Social Science and

Humanities Research Council of Canada and from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.


References

Andersen, C. and Denis, C. (2003) Urban native communities and the nation model: before and after the royal

commission on Aboriginal peoples. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology.

Anderson, K.J. (1993) Constructing geographies: ‘Race’, place and the making of Sydney’s Aboriginal Redfern.

In: Jackson, P., Penrose, J. (Eds.), Constructions of Race, Place and Nation. University College, London

Press, London, pp. 81–99.

Anderson, K. (1998) Science and the savage: the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 1874–1900. Ecumene 5,

125–143.

Anderson, K. and Jacobs, J.M. (1997) From urban Aborigines to Aboriginality and the city: one path through the

history of Australian cultural geography. Australian Geographical Studies 35(1), 12–22.

Atwell, P.H., (1969). Kinship and migration among Calgarian residents of Indian origin. Unpublished MA Thesis.

University of Calgary, Calgary.

Baril, E.J., (1981). Native households in Winnipeg: Strategies of Co-Residence and Financial Support.

Unpublished M.A. thesis. Geography, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.

Barron, F.L. (1988) The Indian pass system in the Canadian West, 1882–1935. Prairie Forum 21, 25–42.

Barron, F.L. and Garcea, J. (1999) Urban Reserves: Forging a New Relationship in Saskatchewan. Purich

Publishing, Saskatoon.

Bauder, H. and Sharpe, B. (2002) Residential segregation of visible minorities in Canada’s gateway cities. The

Canadian Geographer 46, 204–222.

Bear Robe, A. (1971) A Study Tour of Canadian Friendship Centers, June 1–August 31, 1970. Citizenship Branch,

Ottawa, Ont.

Berkes, P.R., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J. and Dixon, J. (2002) Planning and indigenous people: human rights and

environmental protection in New Zealand. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22(2), 115–134.

Berkhoffer, R. (1979) The white man’s Indian: images of the American Indian from Columbus to the present.Vintage, New York.

Bernier, R., 1997. The dimensions of wage inequality among Aboriginal peoples. Report No. 109, Statistics

Canada.

Boal, F.W. (1999) From undivided cities to undivided cities: assimilation to ethnic cleansing. Housing Studies 14,

585–600.

Bodnar, J. (1985) The Transplanted: a History of Immigrants in Urban America. Indiana University Press,

Bloomington.

Bollens, S.A. (2002) Urban planning and intergroup conflict: confronting a fractured public interest. Journal of

the American Planning Association 68, 22–42.

Borovoy, A.A. (1966) Indian Poverty in Canada. Canadian Labour 12, 13–15.

Bourne, L.S., Baker, A.M., Kalbach, W., Cressman, R. and Green, D. (1986) Canada’s Ethnic Mosaic:Characteristics and Patterns of Ethnic Origin Groups in Urban Areas. Centre for Urban and Community

Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Braroe, N.W. (1975) Indian and White: Self-Image and Interaction in a Canadian Plains Community. Stanford

University Press, Stanford.

Brealey, K.G. (1995) Mapping them ‘out’: EuroCanadian cartography and appropriation of the Nuxalk and

Ts’ilhqot’in first nations’ territories, 1793–1916. The Canadian Geographer 39, 140–156.

Breton, R. (1964) Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and the personal relations of immigrants.

American Journal of Sociology 70, 193–205.

Brody, H. (1972) Indians on Skid Row: The Role of Alcohol and Community in the Adaptive Process of IndianUrban Migrants. Department of Indian Affairs, Northern Science Research Group, Ottawa, Ont.

Buck, N. (2001) Identifying neighbourhood effects on social exclusion. Urban Studies 38, 2251–2275.

Burgess, E.W. (1967) The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project. In: Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W.,

McKenzie, R.D. (Eds.), The City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 47–62. First published in

1925.

Burnley, I. and Heibert, D. (2001) Emerging patterns of immigrant settlement at the metropolitan scale. In:

Ley, D., Murphy, P. (Eds.), Immigration in Gateway Cities: Sydney and Vancouver in ComparativePerspective. Progress in Planning, vol. 55, pp. 127–140.


Cairns, A.C. (2000) Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Campbell, M. (1973) Halfbreed. McClelland and Stewart-Bantam Limited, Toronto.

Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity. Blackwell, Oxford.

Chartrand, D., (1992). The Electronic Series: Public Hearings. Public Hearings, Royal Commission on

Aboriginal Peoples, Toronto, Ont., B.C., CD-ROM, Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ont.

City of Winnipeg, 2003. First Steps: Municipal Aboriginal Pathways, City of Winnipeg, Winnipeg.

Clatworthy, S. (1994) The Migration and Mobility Patterns of Canada’s Aboriginal Population. Prepared for the

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Four Directions Consulting Group, Winnipeg, Man.

Clatworthy, S., (2000). First Nation Affiliation Among Registered Indians Residing in Select Urban Areas. Four

Directions Project Consultants, Winnipeg, Man.

Clatworthy, C., Hull, J. and Loughren, H. (1995a) Urban Aboriginal organizations: Edmonton, Toronto and

Winnipeg. In: Peters, E.J. (Ed.), Aboriginal Self-Government in Urban Areas. Institute of Intergovernmental

Relations, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., pp. 25–82.

Clatworthy, S., Hull, J. and Loughren, N. (1995b) Employment of the Aboriginal Labour Force: Patterns ofemployment, unemployment and poverty. Prepared for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Four

Directions Consulting Group, Winnipeg, Man..

Cornell, S. and Kalt, J. (1992) Reloading the dice: improving the economic development on American Indian

reservations. In: Cornell, S., Kalt, J. (Eds.), What Can Tribes Do? Structure and Institutions in AmericanIndian Economic Development. American Indians Studies Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

Damas and Smith Ltd, (1975). A Report on the Feasibility Study Prepared for Neeginan (Manitoba) Incorporated.

Damas and Smith Ltd, Winnipeg.

Danziger, E.J. (1991) Survival and Regeneration: Detroit’s American Indian Community. Wayne State University

Press, Detroit.

Darden, J.T. and Kamel, S.M. (2002) The spatial and socioeconomic analysis of first nation people in Toronto

CMA. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies 22, 239–268.

Davis, A.K. (1965) Edging Into Mainstream: Urban Indians in Saskatchewan. Western Washington State

College, Bellingham.

Decter, M. (1978) Children of the ghetto.children of despair. Perception 2, 3–4.

Denton, T., (1970). Strangers in their land: a study of migration from a Canadian Indian reserve. Unpublished

PhD Thesis. University of Toronto, Toronto.

Department of Indian Affairs, Canada, 1911. Annual Report. King’s Printer, Ottawa.

Dirlik, A. (1996) The past as legacy and project: postcolonial criticism in the perspective of indigenous

historicism. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 20, 1–31.

Distasio, J., (2004). First Nations/Metis/Inuit Mobility Study. Final Report. Institute of Urban Studies in

Collaboration with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Manitoba Metis Federation, Winnipeg.

Dosman, E.J. (1972) Indians: The Urban Dilemma. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto.

Drost, H. (1995) The Aboriginal-White unemployment gap in Canada’s urban labor market. In: Drost, H.,

Crowley, B.L., Schwindt, R. (Eds.), Market Solutions for Native Poverty: Social Policy for the Third Solitude.C.D. Howe Institute, Toronto.

Drost, H. and Richards, J. (2003) Income On- and Off-Reserve: How Aboriginals are Faring. C.D. Howe Institute,

Ottawa, Ont.

Duncan, D. and Duncan, B. (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation. American Sociological Review 20,

210–217.

Dunn, M., (1986). Access to survival: a perspective on Aboriginal self-government for the Constituency of theNative Council of Canada. NCC Constitutional Secretariat. Position paper, Institute of Intergovernmental

Relations, Queen’s University, Kingston.

Dunn, K., Thompson, S., Hanna, B., Murphy, P. and Burnley, I. (2001b) Multicultural policy within local

government in Australia. Urban Studies 38, 2477–2494.

Dust, T.M. (1995a) The Impact of Aboriginal Land Claims and Self-Government on Canadian Municipalities: ALocal Government Perspective. Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research, Toronto.

Dust, T.M. (1995b) Implementing self-government in cities. In: Peters, E.J. (Ed.), Aboriginal Self-Government inUrban Areas. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., pp. 183–187.


EKOS Research Associates, Inc., (2003). Findings of the 2003 Pilot Survey of Aboriginal People Living Off-Reserve. EKOS Research Associates, Ottawa, Ont.

Ellis, L., Pinacie, E., Turner, V. and Swiftwolfe, H. (1978) Survey of Band Members Living Off Reserve.Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

Francis, D. (1992) The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture. Arsenal Pulp Press,

Vancouver.

Frideres, J.S. (1974) Canada’s Indians: Contemporary Conflicts. Prentice-Hall of Canada Ltd, Scarborough.

Frideres, J.S. (1983) Native People in Canada: Contemporary Conflicts. Prentice-Hall of Canada Ltd,

Scarborough.

Frood, P. (1999) Introduction. In: Barron, F.L., Garcea, J. (Eds.), Urban Reserves: Forging a New Relationship inSaskatchewan. Purich Publishing, Saskatoon, pp. xii–xiv.

Fukuyama, F. (1999) The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Profile Books,

London.

Fullham, S.A. (1981) In Search of a Future. Kinew Publishers, Winnipeg.

Gans, H.J. (1962) The Urban Villagers. Group and Class in the Life Italian–Americans. The Free Press of

Glencoe, New York.

Gerber, L. (1984) Trends in out-migration from Indian communities across Canada: path analysis. Canadian

Review of Sociology and Anthropology 21(2), 46–54.

Glasmeier, A.K. (2002) One nation, pulling apart: the basis of persistent poverty in the USA. Progress in Human

Geography 26, 155–174.

Goldie, T. (1989) Fear and Temptation: The Image of the Indigene in Canadian, Australian, and New ZealandLiteratures. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Kingston/Montreal.

Goldmann, G. and Siggner, A. (1995) Statistical concepts of Aboriginal people and factors affecting the counts inthe census and the Aboriginal peoples survey. Paper Presented to the 1995 Symposium of the Federation of

Canadian Demographers, Ottawa 1995.

Graham, A.H. and Peters, E.J. (2002) Aboriginal communities and urban sustainability. In: Seidle, F.L. (Ed.), TheFederal Role in Canada’s Cities: Four Policy Perspectives. Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa,

Ont.

Guimond, E. (2003) Fuzzy definitions and population explosion: changing identities of Aboriginal groups in

Canada. In: Newhouse, D., Peters, E.J. (Eds.), Not Strangers in These Parts: Aboriginal People in Cities. PRI,

Ottawa, Ont., pp. 35–50.

Hajnal, F. (1995) The nature of concentrated urban poverty in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of

Sociology 20, 497–528.

Hamer, D. (1990) New towns in the New World, Images and Perceptions of the Nineteenth-Century UrbanFrontier. Columbia University Press, New York.

Hammett, C. (1994) Social polarization in global cities: theory and evidence. Urban Studies 31,

401–424.

Hammett, C. (1996) Social polarization, economic restructuring and welfare state regimes. Urban Studies 33,

1407–1430.

Hanselmann, C. (2001) Urban Aboriginal people in Western Canada. Canada West Foundation, Calgary.

Hanselmann, C. (2002a) Uncommon Sense: Promising Practices in Urban Aboriginal Policy-Making andProgramming. Canada West Foundation, Calgary.

Harding, J. (1971) Canada’s Indians: a powerless minority. In: Harp, J., Hofley, J.R. (Eds.), Poverty in Canada.

Prentice-Hall of Canada, Ltd, Scarborough, Ont., pp. 239–252.

Harmsworth, G., 2004. The role of Maori values in low-impact urban design and development. Discussion paper.

Landcare Research NX Ltd. Palmerston North. www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/urban/liudd/maori_ur-

ban_sustainability.pdf. Accessed November 2004.

Harris, C. (1992) The lower mainland 1820–81. In: Wynn, G., Oke, T. (Eds.), Vancouver and its Regions. UBC

Press, Vancouver, pp. 38–68.

Harris, C. (2002) Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia. UBC Press,

Vancouver.

Hawthorn, H.B. (1958) Indians of British Columbia: A Study of Contemporary Social Adjustment. University of

Toronto Press, Toronto.


Hawthorn, H.B. (Ed.), 1966–1967. A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada: A Report of Economic,

Political and Educational Needs and Policies. Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, Ont.

Hayden, T., (2004). Globe and Mail. p. F6.

Healey, P. (2004) Editorial. Planning Theory and Practice 5, 5–8.

Heibert, D. (2000) Ghetto. In: Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G., Watts, M. (Eds.), The Dictionary of HumanGeography. Blackwell, Masschusetts, pp. 312–313.

Heisz, A., McLeod, L., (2004). Low income in census metropolitan areas. Perspectives. Statistics Canada,

Ottawa. Catalogue No. 75-001-XIE.

Hibbard, M. and Lane, M.B. (2004) By the seat of your pants: indigenous action and state response. Planning

Theory and Practice 5, 97–104.

Holston, J. (1995) Spaces of insurgent citizenship. Planning Theory 13, 35–51.

Hughes, M.A. (1989) Misspeaking truth to power: a geographical perspective on the ‘underclass’ fallacy.

Economic Geography 65, 187–207.

Hughes, M.A. (1990) Formation of the impacted ghetto: evidence from large metropolitan areas, 1970–1980.

Urban Geography 11, 265–284.

Hylton, J.H. (1999) The case for self-government: a social policy perspective. In: Hylton, J.H. (Ed.), AboriginalSelf-Government in Canada. Purich Publishing, Saskatoon, pp. 78–91.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Canada (2001) Aboriginal Labour Force Characteristics from the 1996Census. INAC, Ottawa, Ont.

Indian Eskimo Association of Canada, 1962. Proceedings of the National Research Seminar on Indians in the

City. Unpublished. Available at the Stouffer Library, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

Jaccoud, M. and Brassard, R. (2003) The marginalization of Aboriginal women in Montreal. In: Newhouse, D.,

Peters, E.J. (Eds.), Not Strangers in These Parts: Urban Aboriginal Peoples. PRI, Ottawa, Ont., pp. 131–146.

Jackson, P. (1989) Maps of Meaning. Unwin Hyman, London.

Jackson, P. (1992) Constructions of culture, representations of race: Edward Curtis’s ‘way of seeing’. In:

Anderson, K., Gale, F. (Eds.), Inventing Places: Studies in Cultural Geography. Longman Cheshire Pty

Limited, Melbourne, pp. 89–106.

Jackson, S., (1998). Geographies of coexistence: native title, cultural difference and the decolonisation of

planning in north Australia. Unpublished PhD Thesis. School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW,

Australia.

Jacobs, J.M. (1996) Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the city. Routledge, London.

Jargowsky, P.A. (1997) Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios and the American City. Russell Sage Foundation,

New York.

Jargowsky, P.A. and Bane, M.J. (1991) Ghetto Poverty in the United States: 1970–1980. In: Jencks, C.,

Peterson, P.E. (Eds.), The Urban Underclass. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

Jenson, J. (2000) Thinking About Marginalization: What, Who and Why? Canadian Policy Research Networks,

Ottawa, Ont.

Johnson, L. (1994) Colonising the Suburban Frontier: place-making on Melbourne’s urban fringe. In: Gibson, K.,

Watson, S. (Eds.), Metropolis Now: Planning the Urban in Contemporary Australia. Pluto Press, Leichhardt,

NSW, pp. 46–59.

Johnston, R., Forrest, J. and Poulsen, M. (2001) Sydney’s ethnic geography: new approach to analysing patterns

of residential concentration. Australian Geographer 32, 149–162.

Kalbach, W.E. (1987) Growth and distribution of Canada’s ethnic populations, 1871–1981. In: Dreidger, L. (Ed.),

Ethnic Canada. Identities and Inequalities. Copp Clark Pitman, Toronto.

Kalt, J.P. (1993) Sovereignty and economic development on American Indian reservations: lessons from the

United States. In: Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples (1993) Sharing the Harvest. The Road to Self-Reliance. Report of the National Round Table on Aboriginal Economic Development and Resources. Minister

of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ont., pp. 35–50.

Kazemipur, A. and Halli, S.S. (2000) The New Poverty in Canada: Ethnic Groups and Ghetto Neighbourhoods.Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc., Toronto.

Kearns, A. and Forrest, R. (2000) Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban Studies 37, 995–1017.

Kerr, D., Siggner, A.J. and Bourdeau, J.P. (1996) Canada’s Aboriginal Population 1981–1991. Canada Mortgage

and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, Ont.


Krotz, L. (1980) Urban Indians: the Strangers in Canada’s Cities. Hurtig Publishers Ltd., Edmonton.

Kymlicka, W. (1998) Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Oxford University Press,

Toronto.

Lagasse, J.H. (1958) People of Indian Ancestry: A Social and Economic Study. Department of Agriculture and

Immigration, Manitoba.

LaGrand, J.B. (2002) Indian Metropolis: Native Americans in Chicago, 1945–75. University of Indiana Press,

Urbana.

LaGrand, J.B. (2003) Urban American Indian identity in a US city: the case of Chicago from the 1950s through

the 1970s. In: Newhouse, D., Peters, E.J. (Eds.), Not Strangers in These Parts: Urban Aboriginal Peoples.PRI, Ottawa, Ont., pp. 267–280.

Larson, T. (1983) Negotiating identity: the micmac of Nova Scotia. In: The Politics of Indianess: Case Studies ofNative Ethnopolitics Social and Economic Papers No.212. Institution of Social and Economic Research,

Memorial University of Newfoundland, pp. 37–136.

Lee, K.E. (2000) Urban Poverty in Canada: A Statistical Profile. Canadian Council on Social Development,

Ottawa, Ont.

Leonard, C.D., (2002). The papaschase surrender: a fiduciary law analysis of the surrender of Indian reserve No.136. Unpublished Paper Written for Law 590: Aboriginal Peoples and the Law. Faculty of Law, University of

Alberta, Edmonton.

Les, J. (1995) Approaches to Aboriginal self-government in urban areas: what could self-government look like?

In: Peters, E.J. (Ed.), Aboriginal Self-Government in Urban Areas. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations,

Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., pp. 173–177.

Levitte, Y.M., (2003). Social capital and Aboriginal economic development: opportunities and challenges.Unpublished PhD Thesis, Geography Department, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Lewis, O. (1952) Urbanization without breakdown. Scientific Monthly 75, 31–41.

Lewis, O. (1966) The culture of poverty. Scientific American 215, 19–25.

Ley, D. and Smith, H. (2000) Relations between deprivation and immigrant groups in large Canadian cities.

Urban Studies 37, 37–62.

Lipman, M. (1986) Historical Review of CMHC’s Urban Native Housing Activity. In: Lipman, M., Brandt, C.

(Eds.), Urban Native Housing in Canada Research and Working Paper No. 19. Institute of Urban Studies,

University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg.

Lithman, Y.A. (1984) The Community Apart: A Case Study of a Canadian Indian Reserve Community. University

of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, Man.

Loxley, J. (1994) Aboriginal people in the Winnipeg economy: case study. Research Study Prepared for the Royal

Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Winnipeg, Man.

Loxley, J. and Wien, F. (2003) Urban Aboriginal Development. In: Newhouse, D., Peters, E.J. (Eds.), NotStrangers in These Parts: Aboriginal People in Cities. PRI, Ottawa, Ont., pp. 217–242.

Lurie, N.O. (1967) The Indian moves to an urban setting, in resolving conflicts—a cross-cultural approach.

Department of University Extensions and Adult Education, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, pp. 73–86.

Maaka, R. and Fleras, A. (2000) Engaging with indigeneity: Tino Rangatiratanga in Aotearoa. In: Ivison, D.,

Patton, P., Sanders, W. (Eds.), Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cambridge University

Press, New York, pp. 89–113.

Maidman, F. (1981) Native people in urban settings: problems, needs and services. A Report of the Ontario Task

Force on Native People in the Urban Setting. Ontario Task Force, Toronto.

Massey, D.S. and Denton, M.A. (1988) The dimensions of residential segregation. Forces 67, 281–315.

Massey, D.S. and Denton, M.A. (1993) American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Matunga, H. (2000) Decolonising planning: the Treaty of Waitangi, the environment and a dual planning

tradition. In: Memon, P.A., Perkins, H.C. (Eds.), Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand.

Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.

Maxim, P.S., White, J.P., Whitehead, P.C. and Beavon, D. (2000a) Patterns of Residential Settlement amongCanada’s First Nations Communities. Population Studies Centre, University of Western Ontario, London,

Ontario.


McCaskill, D.N. (1981) The urbanization of Canadian Indians in Winnipeg, Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver.

Culture 1(1), 82–89.

Meadows, M.L., (1980). Adaptation to urban life by native Canadian women: a case study. Unpublished MA

Thesis. Department of Sociology, University of Calgary, Calgary.

Melling, J. (1967) Right to a Future: the Native Peoples of Canada. T.H. Best Printing Co., Ltd,

Toronto.

Mendelson, J. (2004) Aboriginal People in Canada’s Labour Market: Work and Unemployment, Today andTomorrow. Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Ottawa, Ont.

Misquadis v. Canada, (Attorney General) 2003. Federal Court Records, http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2002/

2002fct1058.html. Accesses Februay 26, 2004.

Mitchell, P. and Walsh, F. (2004) Planning for country: cross cultural approaches to decision making onAboriginal lands. IAD Press, Alice Springs, NT.

Mohan, J. (2002) Geographies of welfare and social exclusion: dimensions, consequences and methods. Progress

in Human Geography 26, 65–76.

Mooney, K.A. (1979) Ethnicity, economics, the family cycle and household composition. Canadian Review of

Sociology and Anthropology 16(4), 387–403.

Morse, B. (1989) Government obligations, Aboriginal peoples and section 91 (24): Aboriginal peoples. In:

Hawkes, D.C. (Ed.), Government Responsibility and Aboriginal Peoples: Exploring Federal and ProvincialRoles. Carelton University Press, Ottawa, Ont., pp 59–92.

Morse, B., (1993). A Legal and Jurisdictional Analysis of Urban Self-Government. Native Council of Canada.

Royal Commission Intervenor Research Project, Ottawa, Ontario.

Mountjoy, T. (1995) Regina perspectives on Aboriginal self-government. In: Peters, E.J. (Ed.), Aboriginal Self-Government in Urban Areas. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.,

pp 143–150.

Munroe, G. (2002) Vice president, Winnipeg Aboriginal Council. Interview.

Nagler, M. (1970) Indians in the City, Canadian Research Centre for Anthropology. St Paul University, Ottawa,

Ont.

Native Council of Canada (1993) The First Peoples Urban Circle: Choices for Self-Determination Native.Prepared for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Native Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.

Newhouse, D.R. (2000) From the tribal to the modern: the development of modern Aboriginal societies. In:

Laliberte, R.F. et al. (Ed.), Expressions in Canadian Native Studies. University of Saskatchewan Extension

Press, Saskatoon, pp. 395–409.

Newhouse, D. and Peters, E.J. (Eds.), (2003). Not Strangers in These Parts: Aboriginal People in Cities. PRI,

Ottawa, Ont.

Norris, M.J., Clatworthy, S., 2003. Aboriginal mobility and migration within urban Canada: outcomes, factorsand implications. Paper Presented at the Joint PAA/CPS Session on Demography of North American

Aboriginal Populations, Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis, Minnesota,

April 30–May 3.

Norris, M.J., Cooke, M. and Clatworthy, S. (2002a) Aboriginal mobility and migration patterns and policy

implications. In: Taylor, J., Bell, M. (Eds.), Population Mobility and Indigenous Peoples in Australasia andNorth America. Routledge, London.

Norris, M.J., Cooke, M. and Clatworthy, S. (2002b) The mobility and migration patterns of registered and non-

status Indians, Metis, and Inuit in Canada: similarities and contrasts, Paper presented at the Annual

Conference of the Canadian Association of Geographers, Toronto.

Opekokew, D. (1995) Treaty first nations perspectives on self-government for Aboriginal peoples in urban areas.

In: Peters, E.J. (Ed.), Aboriginal Self-Government in Urban Areas. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations,

Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., pp 168–172.

Park, R.E. (1928) Human Migration and the Marginal Man. The American Journal of Sociology 33, 881–893.

Peach, C. (1996) Does Britain have ghettoes?. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographer 21, 216–235.

Peach, C. (1999) London and New York: contrasts in British and American models of segregation. International

Journal of Population Geography 5, 319–351.

Penner, K. (1983) Indian Self-Government. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.


Peters, E.J. (1996) Aboriginal people in Urban areas. In: Long, D., Dickason, O.P. (Eds.), Visions of the heart:

Canadian Aboriginal issues. Harcourt Brace and Company, Toronto.

Peters, E.J. (2000) Aboriginal people in urban areas. In: Long, D., Dickason, O.P. (Eds.), Visions of the Heart:Canadian Aboriginal Issues, second ed. Harcourt Canada, Toronto.

Peters, E.J. (2002) ‘Our city Indians’: negotiating the meaning of first nations urbanization in Canada, 1945–1975.

Historical Geography 30, 75–92.

Philpott, T.L. (1978) The slum and the ghetto: neighborhood deterioration and middle class reform, Chicago,

1880–1930. Oxford University Press, New York.

Polese, M. (2002) What ails urban Canada? Globe and Mail.

Porter, L. (2004) Unlearning one’s privilege: reflections on cross-cultural research with indigenous peoples in

south-east Australia. Planning Theory and Practice 5, 104–109.

Portes, A. (1999) Conclusion: toward a new world—the origins and effects of transnational activities. Ethnic and

Racial Studies 22, 463–477.

Poulsen, M.F. and Johnston, R.J. (2000) The ghetto model and ethnic concentration in Australian cities. Urban

Geography 21, 26–44.

Poulsen, M.F., Johnston, R. and Forrest, J. (2001) Intra-urban ethnic enclaves: introducing a knowledge-based

classification procedure. Environment and Planning A 33, 2071–2082.

Poulsen, M.F., Johnston, R. and Forrest, J. (2002a) Plural cities and ethnic enclaves: introducing a measurement

procedure for comparative study. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26, 229–243.

Poulsen, M.F., Forrest, J. and Johnston, R. (2002b) Contemporary ethnic residential segregation in four US

metropolitan areas. Cities 19, 161–172.

Price, J. and McCaskill, D.N. (1974) The urban integration of Canadian native people. Western Canadian Journal

of Anthropology 4, 29–47.

Prince, M.J. and Abele, F. (2003) Paying for self-determination: Aboriginal peoples, self-government and fiscalrelations in Canada. Paper Presented at the Conference Reconfiguring Aboriginal-State Relations Canada

State of the Federation . Institution of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University, Kingston,

Ontariohttp//www.iigr.ca/conferences/archive/pdfs3/Prince_Abele.pdf.

Privy Council Office, Canada, (2002). Urban Aboriginal Strategy: An Analysis. Unpublished.

Putnam, R.D. (1996) The strange disappearance of civic America. American Prospect Winter, 340–348.

Qadeer, M. (1994) Urban planning and multiculturalism in Ontario, Canada. In: Thomas, H., Krishnarayan, V.

(Eds.), Race Equality and Planning: Policies and Procedures. Ashgate Publishing, Brookfield, CT.

Qadeer, M. (1997) Pluralistic planning for multicultural Cities: the Canadian practice. Journal of the American

Planning Association 63, 481–494.

Raby, S. (1973) Indian land surrenders in Southern Saskatchewan. The Canadian Geographer 17, 36–52.

Reeves, W. (1986) Native societies: the professions as a model of self-determination for urban Indians. In:

Ponting, J.R. (Ed.), Arduous Journey: Canadian Indians and Decolonization. McClelland and Stewart,

Toronto, pp. 342–358.

Steering Committee to Establish a Political Body Representing Aboriginal People in Toronto, April 9, 2002.

Report of the Steering Committee to Establish a Political Body Representing Aboriginal People in Toronto.

Steering Committee, http://www.turning-point.ca/index.php/article/view/97/1/22. Accessed Nov. 15, 2004.

Richards, J. (2001) Neighbors Matter. Poor Neighborhoods and Urban Aboriginal Policy. C.D. Howe Institute,

Toronto.

Ricketts, E. and Sawhill, I. (1988) Defining and measuring the ‘underclass’. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management 7, 316–325.

Rothney, R.G. (1992) Neechi Foods Co-op Ltd: Lessons in Community Development. Winnipeg Family Economic

Development, Inc., Winnipeg.

Rowley, G. (1978) ‘Plus Ca Change.’: a Canadian skid row. Canadian Geographer 22, 211–224.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Canada (1993) Aboriginal Peoples in Urban Centres. Minister of

Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ont.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Canada (1996) Perspectives and Realities, vol. 4. Minister of Supply

and Services, Ottawa, Ont.

Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Wiley, Toronto.


Sandercock, L. (2004b) Commentary: indigenous planning and the burden of colonialism. Planning Theory and

Practice 5, 118–124.

Schweitzer, J.H. (1999) Measuring social capital on urban residential blocks. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Louisville, Kentucky 1999;.

Seguin, A.-M. and Divay, G. (2002) Urban poverty: fostering sustainable and supportive communities. In:

Seidle, F.L. (Ed.), The Federal Role in Canada’s Cities: Four Policy Perspectives. Canadian Policy Research

Networks, Ottawa, Ont.

Sgro, J. (2002) Canada’s Urban Strategy: A Vision for the 21st Century, Canada. Prime Minister’s Caucus Task

Force on Urban Issues, Ottawa, Ont.

Siggner, A. and Hagey, J. (2001) Measuring the demographic and socio-economic conditions of Aboriginalpeoples in Canada using the Census. Prepared for The Canadian Population Society Annual Meetings,

Halifax.

Stack, C.B. (1974) All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. Harper & Row, New York.

Stackhouse, J. (2001) Welcome to Harlem on the Prairies. Globe and Mail; F2–F4.

Stanbury, W.T. (1975) Success and Failure: Indians in Urban Society. University of British Columbia Press,

Vancouver.

Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1969) Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence,vol. 7. Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, Ont.

Statistics Canada, 2003. Aboriginal peoples of Canada. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/

analytic/companion/abor/canada.cfm, Accessed January 21, 2003.

Stymeist, D. (1975) Ethnics and Indians. Peter Martin Associates, Toronto.

Svenson, K. (1978) The Explosive Years: Indian and Metis Issues in Saskatchewan to 2001. Prepared for the

Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Regina, Saskatchewan.

Thomas, H. and Krishnarayan, V. (1994) Introduction: securing a fair planning system for Britain’s ethnic

minorities. In: Thomas, H., Krishnarayan, V. (Eds.), Race Equality and Planning: Policies and Procedures.Ashgate Publishing, Brookfield, CT.

Tizya, R. (1992) Comment on urban Aboriginals and self-government, Conference on Aboriginal Peoples and

Power Sharing in Canada, 17 February, 1992. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University.

Tobias, J.L. (1983) Protection, civilization, assimilation: an outline history of Canada’s Indian policy. In:

Getty, A.L., Lussier, A.S. (Eds.), As Long as the Sun Shines and Water Flows: A Reader in Canadian NativeStudies. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp. 29–38.

Todd, R. (2000/2001) Between the land and the city: Aboriginal agency, culture, and governance in urban areas.

The London Journal of Canadian Studies 16, 48–66.

Tupone, J. (2001) Neechi Foods Co-operative Limited—update 2000, Aboriginal Co-operatives in Canada CaseStudies. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa, Ont.

URBAN, (1993). An Urban Model of Self-Government: Traditional, Flexible, Dynamic, and Accessible. Report

Prepared for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, URBAN, Vancouver.

Van Heest, N., 1993. The Electronic Series: Public Hearings. Public Hearings, Royal Commission on Aboriginal

Peoples, Toronto, Ont., BC., CD-ROM, Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa.

Wacquant, L.D. (1996) The rise of advanced marginality: notes on its nature and implications. Acta Sociologica

39, 121–139.

Wacquant, L.D. (1997) Three pernicious premises in the study of the American ghetto. International Journal of

Urban and Regional Research 21, 341–353.

Wacquant, L.D. (1999) Urban marginality in the coming millennium. Urban Studies 36, 1639–1647.

Wacquant, L.D. (2001) Logic of urban polarization: the view from below. Berliner Journal Fur Soziologie 11,

479–483.

Walker, R.C. (2003) Engaging the urban Aboriginal population in low-cost housing initiatives: lessons from

Winnipeg. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 12, 99–118.

Walker, R.C., (2004). Urban citizenship and Aboriginal self-determination in the Winnipeg low-cost housing

sector. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis in Geography. Queen’s University, Kingston.

Weaver, H.N. (2001) Indigenous identity: what is it and who reallyhas it?. American Indian Quarterly 25, 240–255.

Weibel-Orlando, J. (1999) Indian Country, L.A.: Maintaining Ethnic Community in Complex Society. University

of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.


Weinstein, J. (1986) Aboriginal Self-Determination Off a Land Base. Background Paper No. 8. Institute of

Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University, Kingston.

Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (1998) Informal Employment in the Advanced Economies. Routledge, London.

Wilson, W.J. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the ‘Underclass’ and Public Policy. The

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Wilson, W.J. (1996) When Work Disappears. Knopf, New York.

Wilson, K.J., (2000). The role of mother earth in shaping the health of Anishinabek: a geographical exploration ofculture, health and place. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Department of Geography, Queen’s University, Kingston.

Wirth, L. (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. In: Reiss Jr., A.J. (Ed.), On Cities and Social Life. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Wolfe, J. (1989) Approaches to planning in native Canadian communities: a review and commentary on

settlement problems and the effectiveness of planning practice. Plan Canada 29, 63–79.

Wotherspoon, R. (2003) Prospects for a new middle class among urban Aboriginal peoples. In: Newhouse, E.J.,

Peters, E.J. (Eds.), Not Strangers in These Parts: Urban Aboriginal Peoples. PRI, Ottawa, Ont., pp 147–166.

Yancey, W., Juliani, R. and Erikson, E. (1976) Emergent ethnicity: a review and reformulation. American

Sociological Review 41, 391–403.

Young, I.M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Young, D. (1995) Some approaches to urban Aboriginal governance. In: Peters, E.J. (Ed.), Aboriginal Self-Government in Urban Areas, Proceedings of a Workshop, 25–26 May, 1995. Institute of Intergovernmental

Relations, Queen’s University, Kingston, pp. 153–162.

Zukin, S. (1998) How ‘bad’ is it?: institutions and intentions in the study of the American ghetto. International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22, 511–520.

Presentations to the Public Hearings, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples16

Adams, J. (1992) Urban native women’s issues, Public Hearings. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Port

Alberni, BC. May 20.

Courchene, J. (1993) Indigenous women’s collective, Public Hearings. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,

Winnipeg, Man. June 3.

Croxon, C. (1993) Public Hearings. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, North Bay, Ont. May 10.

Ellison, K. (1992) Aboriginal women’s council of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Aboriginal women’s local, PublicHearings. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. October 28.

Fontaine, M. (1992) President, Aboriginal women’s unity coalition, Public Hearings. Royal Commission on

Aboriginal Peoples, Winnipeg, Man. April 23.

Gamble, S. (1992) Public Hearings. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Brandon, Man. December 10.

Meconse, G. (1992) Vice-President, Native Mediation, Inc., Public Hearings. Royal Commission on Aboriginal

Peoples, Winnipeg, Man. April 22.

Sillett, M. (1995) Commissioner,PublicHearings. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Montreal, Que. May

25.

Standingready,L.(1993)PublicHearings.RoyalCommissiononAboriginalPeoples,Regina,Saskatchewan.May11.

Wilson, V. (1992) Aboriginal women’s council of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Aboriginal women’s local, PublicHearings. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. October 28.

16 These references can be found in: Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1993: The Electronic Series:

Public Hearings. CD-ROM. Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa.

indigeneity and marginalisation: planning for and with urban aboriginal communities in canada

Documents