Treaty Indians, First Nations, Descendants

[NDN_Outlaw]

Apukjij what is your position on the legitimacy of the controversial Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) ?

[Moma_porcupine]

Apukjij, thanks for trying to clarify some of what you have previously said.

I know i can be hard on people who seem to contradict themselves.... It's not personal and I only do this because I think it's important people are clear in their approach to these issues.

 Most of us have a few contradictory and incompatible beliefs that tend to cancel each other out , and  we all sometimes say things in a way that what we say isn't exactly what we mean.

But at the same time, if we do this, i think it's important we take responsibilty for our own words and how we said them, and any misunderstandings that result. Especially if this is connected with sensitive definitions which will probably have profound repercussions down the road. 

Apukjij

never said i want anyone who has a drop of native blood to be status, thats ludicrous and alarming to see that in print and i had to distance my self from such statements, see thats why i reacted to her putting words in my mouth, i knew what could happen, I've NEVER publicly stated how i feel on this issue on FB or NAFPS, because its a Mi'kmaq Treaty Right, things will remain "as between the Indians as before" which we insisted be put into the Treaties we've signed with the British and American govts, we don't discuss L'nu core issues with non-L'nu,  UNTIL moma p forced my hand!

Apukjij first off, I don't think this public discussion has yet gone into people with maybe ? a drop of Native blood recieving Indian Status. What has been publicly discussed here so far, has to do with your public comments saying PODIAs who descend from a Treaty signatory deserve to be Treaty benificiaries.

I am sorry to put you on the spot here, but you most definetly did this say this . Read your own words...

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.30

Reply #34 ( my post quoting Apukjij on facebook )
Apukjij

"I will briefly state what i wrote on those post. If you are a
descended from a Treaty Signer i believe you are entitled to join the
Native Council in NS, NB, PEI and NFLD. Thats the only mechanism to
give Metis and People of Distant Indian Ancestry (PODIA) a chance to
excercise the Treaty Rights they deserve.

(Con...),

 

PODIAS WHO TRACE THEIR
HERITAGE BACK TO A TREAT SIGNATOR ARE NOT L'NU BUT TREATY INDIANS."

Reply #35 on: November 23, 2009,
Apukjij

i do belive that if you are a descendant of a Treaty Signator, you are entitled to be a beneficiary, its as simple as that,

It's possible you just haven't thought this through , and that is why you keep contradicting yourself every other sentence. Or maybe you aren't communicating clearly... Or maybe you are angry because I noticed what you are saying and asked questions. I don't know.

Like Sky says it is a complex subject and I don't hold it against you if you are feeling a bit confused about some of the details... Or about what your own position is.

But I do expect people to be responsible for their own words and if they are feeling mixed up to just say so - and not try and make it seem like it is someone else who has a problem.

Apukjij

and as for the subject 'who is a Mi'kmaq Citizen and how the descendants of a Mi'kmaq Treaty Signator fit in, and how and what is a Treaty Beneficiary, and how they fit in will be deliberated by the Mi'kmaq. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR NAFPS TO DISCUSS or FB for that matter, is for L'NU only, not the Feds, not the Province, not for the ngo's, agencies, non for profits and nafps, and i have told moma p this privately and then she continued to force my hand, thats why i don't trust her, shes got an agenda in mind for Wapana'ki peoples, and this agenda has forced her to act in a way that has alienated her from the real grassroots L'nu patriots, i told her the Treaty Beneficiaries Association i belong too refused her request for more information on Qalipu First Nation, if they did respond i would have sent it to her, if this post was titled Re: Mi'kmaq Treaty Indians, First Nations, Descendants i would have fought tooth and nail to get it removed.

Apukjij, considering the actual time line here, and that it is YOU who has been bringing up the issue of who is and who is not a Treaty benificiary for public discussion, I feel you aren't being honest or fair in trying to make it look like I have somehow been disrespectful towards the Mi'kmaq people , in bringing this up.

Below is a post I made in another thread on Nov 10

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2427.msg20183#msg20183
Quoting myself

Here is a situation in Canada I came across when I was researching the Acadian Metis . Up in Newfoundland the canadian government is granting full status and federal recognition to people they are calling the founding members of a new Mi'kmaq First Nation, without requiring  proof beyond a doubt.

http://www.qalipu.com/m_faqs.asp
 

13. Do I have to prove beyond a doubt that I am a descendant of an aboriginal person?

No, but the more information you have to prove this, the stronger your application to be included on the Founding Members list—but you are not required to prove it “beyond a doubt.” The Enrolment Committee will be directed to consider whether you are a descendant of an aboriginal person on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the committee must be satisfied that it is “more likely than unlikely” that you are a descendant of such a person.

I wonder what they mean when they say people don't have to prove this beyond a doubt? Is there some reason the Native people in this area sometimes can't prove their lines of descent? Or has the canadian goverment decided to create new First Nations even when there is reasonable doubts about whether or not some ( or all ? ) of the members are of any Native descent? ( there is no limit on how far back this alleged ancestry can be either) I wonder how they wiegh the probabilities to see what the balance is? What objective criteria are they using to wiegh this? If someone in canada has figuered out how to wiegh probablities, that would be interesting and useful to know.  Assuming they have this figured out.

Seeing some of the Mohawk people complaining about the canadian governemt setting up fake tribes in order to displace legitimate Aboringinal title, some of the precedents here make me wonder...

http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/singlenews.php?lang=en&layout
=mnn&category=58&newsnr=557&backurl=%2Fnews%2Fnews4.php%3Flang%3Den

I wonder if there is some particular circumstances in this area of canada that make this policey make sense?

In response to me asking about this , on November 10 , you told me you had emailed my questions to everyone in the Treaty Advisory group and you would let me know what they said.

You never got back to me.

In Reply #31 on: November 22 I asked about some of Ardy's comments which sounded identical to John Williams,  who promotes the idea of all Acadians being Metis - which the Wabanaki Confederacy has said is hurting First Nations in that area. The link to that discussion is below.

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.30

In reply 32 , on November 22 Apukjij joined the discussion to say good things about Ardy and Apukjij , it was YOU and Ardy who brought up the subject of Treaty negotiations.

Apukjij

There are some Hereditary Chiefs on the Mi'kmaq Grand Council, Gary Metallic was one, but he resigned from the Grand Council and is pursuing Self Govt for his District, which is MI'kmaq tradition, whereby the Districts come under the umbrella of the Grand Council, but each District is Sovereign and when the Treaties were signed they were acceded to District by District, the Signatory had to return to the Districts and had to defend his signing of the Treaty, and only after consensus did the District adhere to the Treaty. For instance I can give you the dates that each District acceded to the Treaty of 1752. This is dramatically different from the Maliseet Penobscot and Passamaquoddy, in which the Treaty Signatories were often Chiefs, and when they signed the Treaties, it was directly on behalf of their entire Nation. This is because they were agricultural based societies and had a completely different type of govt, Mi'kmaq were hunter gatherers, which often have the multi tiered govt i described above. The Indian act chiefs are signing away our rights as we speak, I can name only one Chief of a reserve i admire in all of MI'kmaq Country, the rest are sellouts, trading our Treaty Rights for the all mighty dollar.
 

In Reply #34 on: November 22,  I publicly asked you about your public comments on face book. You had publicly stated that PODIAs deserve to be Treaty benificiaries.   

Then on November 23, Apukjij sent a PM saying my questions he sent to the Treaty Advisory Board about Qalipu won't be answered and this is a private matter which should not be discussed publicly.

Then in Reply #36 on November 23 1/2 an hour after sending this PM, and before I had even been on line to get this, Apukjij posted a public message saying he would tell people in his community I wasn't to be trusted.

And now this is given as the reason
Apukjij

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR NAFPS TO DISCUSS or FB for that matter, is for L'NU only, not the Feds, not the Province, not for the ngo's, agencies, non for profits and nafps, andi have told moma p this privately and then she continued to force my hand, thats why i don't trust her,

 

Well no... Actually, Apukjij, you told me you would try and find out the answers to my questions, didn't get back to me , and then you and your friend Ardy continued to publicly discuss this. It seems like you just didn't want me asking any more public questions about your public comments.
. 
Your unwarrented attacks on me don't reflect well on you Apukjij.  I really hope this is just a misunderstanding.

Because how you are coming across is like it's fine for people to publicly talk about who IS entitled to be a Treaty benificiary, and encourage PODIAs to feel entitled and get involved in the Treaty process,  but it's not OK for anyone to ask about the rational or criteria that is being used to include PODIAs in this, or to ask about the long range consquences of this widely inclusive definition.

Which of course makes me think public discussion might be a very good idea.

I don't mean to be disrespectful , but as both Apukjij and Ardy have portrayed the elected Mi'kmaq leadership as completely corrupt and have mentioned problems with other "infiltrators", I have to admit I have some major misgivings about the fact that some of the very basic definitions and the rational behind this , are not  being explained publicly... Usually if people feel like what they are doing is the right thing , they feel secure in publicly stating their own position and the reasons behind this.

And I also don't see how this can truly be a "private" matter within the Mi'kmaq Nation, if hundreds of thousands of non Mi'kmaq people with extremely distant Mi'kmaq ancestry are being invited to participate as distant descendents or relatives of Treaty signatories. Especially if this is somehow linked to people with little or no Native blood recieving Indian Status or the canadian government creating ?"new"? First Nations?. it seems there is some  precedents being set which might impact the fundamental definition of who is an Aboriginal person in canada... 

I have been guessing that probably if something is majorly and fundamentally wrong with the claims being made , someone within the Mi'kmaq Nation with a lot more knowledge and competence than myself must have noticed, and if there is a serious problem I would guess someone within the Mi'kmaq Nation is going to address this.
 
But the extremely defensive response and unwarrented attacks on me for daring to ask obvious questions,  doesn't help me feel very confident ...

I was also wondering about this

Apukjij

where by my mandate was to serve all indigenous people including the Non-Status.

Who gave you a mandate to serve people who have no NDN status? Are you saying you are a representitve of NCNS which is a CAP affiliate ?

Reply #30
NDN Outlaw   

Apukjij what is your position on the legitimacy of the controversial Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) ?

I would be interested to know that too...

[apukjij]

i feel like im pounding my head on the wall, moma p i addressed every concern you just raised, what kind of trick is this repeating the same concerns i just finished explaining and putting a different spin on it seems like your more interested in posting your own questions rather than reading the answers, i got to hand it to you this is a new type of offense, and this is supposed to engender more trust in me, making statements like the about Mi'kmaq nation and how dare you state how you cant see why this has to be a private matter, you are really digging yourself in a hole here and your denial is almost laughable if it wasnt tragic? and there you again putting words in my mouth telling people that i said Treaty issues are a private matter,  i said the issue of who is a Treaty Beneficiary is a private matter, you make me sick, and i cant belive you are saying metis people dont deserve rights,
     "Apukjij first off, I don't think this public discussion has yet gone into people with maybe ? a drop of Native blood recieving Indian Status. (YES IT DID WHEN YOU MADE THIS STATEMENT IN A POST "You are both seem to be claiming all descendents, no matter how far back and no matter how long it's been since they have had any relationship with a First Nation , should rightfully be considered Treaty Benificiaries.")What has been publicly discussed here so far, has to do with your public comments saying PODIAs who descend from a Treaty signatory deserve to be Treaty benificiaries.
I am sorry to put you on the spot here, but you most definetly did this say this . Read your own words..
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.30
Reply #34 ( my post quoting Apukjij on facebook )
Apukjij
Quote
"I will briefly state what i wrote on those post. If you are a
descended from a Treaty Signer i believe you are entitled to join the
Native Council in NS, NB, PEI and NFLD. Thats the only mechanism to
give Metis and People of Distant Indian Ancestry (PODIA) a chance to
excercise the Treaty Rights they deserve."

so when you question why i state metis deserve rights you better not let Ric hear you question this, and those councils that serve non-status have different membership level depending on your heritage, or in other words they have different membership levels based on what rights you deserve, they way you twist my words is criminal, ive shown nafps your true coulors and now you are intensifying your attack by asking the same questions expecting me to give different answers, your disrespect of Mi'kmaq protocol leaves such a bitter taste in my mouth. ive never worked for cap, but i have worked for the campus and community radio stations assoc and the native friendship centre movt, now i am afraid to answer any of your question seeing the way you twist my words, so dont ask me any more questions, i wont entertain any more of your foolishness, and NDN i have no position on cap, any concerns i had with them i raised with Antle' Denny, Kji-Captain of the Mi'kmaq Grand Council, 2 weeks ago, can we leave it at that?

[Moma_porcupine]

Apukjij

i addressed every concern you just raised, what kind of trick is this repeating the same concerns i just finished explaining and putting a different spin on it seems like your more interested in posting your own questions rather than reading the answers, i got to hand it to you this is a new type of offense,

What ? Apukjij, look, if you are sincere, you need to understand I am honestly not understanding what you are saying, and that is partly your responsiblity. I don't see where you have honestly addressed any of my concerns. All you have done is repeatedly deny saying what you said .

All this personal stuff just serves to deflect from our disscussing the real issues.

I have no idea why you are so offended, but I've tried to cut you some slack , and I've tried to give you the benifit of the doubt, that this is just a misunderstanding and I'm trying not to accuse you of intentionally twisting my words - and it would be nice if you would do the same.

there you again putting words in my mouth telling people that i said Treaty issues are a private matter,  i said the issue of who is a Treaty Beneficiary is a private matter

But you have been discussing this publicly on face book...You mean the definition and criteria being used to define who is a Treaty benificiary is a private matter ? Why ?

how dare you state how you cant see why this has to be a private matter,

Because I really can't see why something as basic as the principles behind who is a Treaty benificiary and who isn't, and who is eligible for Indian Status in canada and who isn't , should be a private matter. That you think it should be is incomnprehensible to me...

I try to imagine what would happen in the US if the criteria the federal government used to recognize tribes was secret, or if the criteria tribes used to include or exclude certain people from enrollment was secret. It just makes no sense to me. In fact it seems more than just a bit fishy.
 

you are intensifying your attack by asking the same questions

Asking questions isn't an attack, unless the answers would make you look bad. And as far as i can understand ( maybe I am honestly dumb) you haven't answered any of my questions - except that you are not working for CAP.

Just my own opinion but I'm glad to hear that.

you question why i state metis deserve rights

No I never questioned that , for the most part the Metis in Central canada aren't PODIAs, and they probably have more Native in them than a lot of status NDNs . The problem is, the definition of Metis is so unclear it might include PODIAs. But i don't think thats the fault of the real Metis, meaning the ones who are represented by the MNC. 

What you are saying about CAP having different levels of recognition and rights depending on peoples heritage is something I'd never heard before, and if this is so , I would probably have a better opinion of CAP - and the practicallity of including distant descendents.

Could someone give some more information about that? That is one of the things I have been wondering about. The Qalipu First Nation which was organized by CAP does seem to be saying the canadian government it is giving full Indian Status to anyone who looks to probably have any Aboriginal ancestry no matter how far back .   

So how does this different levels of entitlement work?

[Moma_porcupine]

Rereading this i am thinking maybe I didn't make what is bothering me clear.

Reply #32 from the thread on Ardy in Archives
Apukjij

The Indian act chiefs are signing away our rights as we speak, I can name only one Chief of a reserve i admire in all of MI'kmaq Country, the rest are sellouts, trading our Treaty Rights for the all mighty dollar. chiefs are the lowest form of vermin in Mi'kmaq Country.

From this comment, I am wondering if the Treaty Advisory board Apukjij is involved with may be something different than the Treaty negotiations being carried out by representives elected within the Mi'kmaq community?   

I completely agree that First Nations should be able to create the criteria which defines their own membership, and that they should be able to do this in privacy and without outside pressures.

As outrageous as it may be that an outsider such as myself is publicly asking questions about definitions, when these definitions should only rightly be created by people within the Mi'kmaq Nation , it seems to me that Apukjij publicly inviting PODIAs into the process- and even saying they deserve to be benificiaries,  would be creating much more in the way of outside pressures, and outsiders thinking they have a right to have a voice in creating these definitions, than my questions about how exactly benificiaries and new Status Indians, are being defined.

If the Mi'kmaq community has already been decided that PODIAs will be included as Treaty benificiaries, then it seems the people who have created this definition would be willing to stand behind it by explaining publicly, who they are, how they were given authority within the Mi'kmaq Nation to make these decisions, who is a treaty benificiary, who isn't and who might be, and the reasons why this desicion was arrived at.

Otherwise there is hundreds of thousands of people who won't be sure if they are in or out, and people who care about the sovriegnty and rights of First Nations in canada won't be sure if they should be joining or not joining, or encouraging or discouraging their relatives and friends from getting involved with CAP, or thinking they deserve to be a Treaty benificiary.

I hope what I am concerned about has been explained more clearly here, than my last 2 overly long rambling posts.... 

[Ric_Richardson]

Tansi;

As I have stated, on a previous topic, I do not have an opinion on the Aboriginal people's of the East.  That is a very long way from where I live.  I also do not know much about CAP, other than that they publicly came out in support of the Conservative Party, before the last federal election, had their president appointed as to the Canadian Senate, when the Conservatives won the election, and do not provide any apparent transparency in thier organization, as far as I have been able to learn.  I have not been able to learn about thier membership criteria nor membership numbers, in an accountable manner.

I also do not know that the people of this area would be able to be considered as Metis, under the criteria of the Metis National Council (MNC), which represents the Metis of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, where the Metis people have a long history, Culture and political identity.  Metis people are not beneficiaries of any Treaties, but do have Aboriginal Rights, under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, 1982.

I do not wish to be brought into this particular thread, but felt it necessary to respond, due to my name being brought up, possibly as a way of attempting to gain my support, which I am not able to give.
Ric

[apukjij]

omf im having freaking flashbacks of university, where not only the professors but the other students as well, we were having the same problems, as my Elders warned me i was going to have a problem with linear thinking, i cant state it any other further momap if you would only listen, i addressed all yur concerns and dont know any other way to do it, now im think im beginning to understand when my therapist stated an arab and a jew could should never get married, the only thing i can add is your talking to someone who has been at the forefront for 25 years, when we started and supported the friendship centre and the native council movts there was no such thing as cap

[apukjij]

ric the reason why i mentioned my name was moma p was trying to crucify me over the following statement i made on another website,
Quote
"I will briefly state what i wrote on those post. If you are a
descended from a Treaty Signer i believe you are entitled to join the
Native Council in NS, NB, PEI and NFLD. Thats the only mechanism to
give Metis and People of Distant Indian Ancestry (PODIA) a chance to
excercise the Treaty Rights they deserve."
i fought hard in the friendship centre movt many years ago to make sure the Metis and the non-status to be included, there was no bill-c31 then, people like me were all non-status, i remember a friendship centre conf years ago where i spent the entire conference in the company of Terry Lusty, which in it self was extraordinary for a Mi'kmaw half-breed from the east connecting with a Metis pioneer from the west, so when i take a step back i see i must have mentioned your name because theres a certain part of me that sees momma p's ministrations as an attack on the Metis and the non-status.

[apukjij]

i am still stepping back and taking inventory, and now i see why i get so triggered by you momap you remind me of john greywolf williams, in that you are the finest expert on what you have been taught and uncovered in fact a genius in that respect, but what you have defend so fiercely ...so fiercly, and the tragic part it is such a miniscule part of the overall picture, and your ego refuses you to let anything new in.......

[NDN_Outlaw]

...your ego refuses you to let anything new in...

Sounds like projection to me. I will give credit to the Mic Mac and other tribal peoples down east for surviving so much and still remaining a people. The persecution was horrific and it can certainly be argued the British practiced genocide against the Mic Mac:

" In 1749, Nova Scotia's English Governor Colonel Edward Cornwallis, ordered his troops to "annoy, distress, take or destroy the savages commonly known as Mic-macks (sic) where ever they are found.." He established two companies of volunteers to hunt and kill Micmacs, offered ten pounds sterling for every Micmac scalped or taken prisoner, and ordered his troops to burn the forests...The campaign of genocide continued relentlessly for over a decade. Hundreds of Micmac were massacred."

- The Dispossessed, life and death in Native Canada, Geoffrey York, Little & Brown ,ISBN 0-316-90272-1

This is a history they don't teach us in school. It would be a shame if the same people who now sacrifice so much for their people, should find their numbers overwhelmed by those who don't. Beware the newly minted NDNs who have less NDN blood than a misquito.

[Moma_porcupine]

I understand it's not my buiseness to say who is Mi'kmaq and who isn't, or who is a Treaty benificerary and who isn't, but as a general rule of thumb , I question any group claiming to represent the 'rights" of PODIAs AKA people who are less then 1/8 descent or more than 2 generations removed from family that lives in a recognized historic Native community.

I am not comfortable supporting any group claiming to represent the rights of PODIAs unless I am sure this group has a clear mandate to do so from the recognized leaders of the tribe these people descend from.

I have a lot of respect for both Sky and Joey's opinion, and from what is being said it sounds like the Mi'kmaq are supporting this.

I still don't get it, and I don't see asking questions about this as an attack, but I'm certainly not going to continue if that is how I am coming across.

[apukjij]

i go thru this everyday, all these people putting thier energy in divisions, putting so much energy in the attempt to be right, every L'nu site on FB i write the same thing,> the supreme court of canada ruled the Treaty of 1752 and its tenet that L'nu "have the right to a moderate living of the resources" are valid, we should be putting all out energy into forcing the govt to live up to that (and the other treaties), because if the govt lived up to thier obligations, and every "l'nu" earned a moderate living, then we would not be having these contentions, and the threat of scarcity and the fear it engenders would melt like a snowflake on my nose...

[NDN_Outlaw]

The situation in Mic Mac country may be complicated and confusing but it has some very serious implications for other Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Precedents set in one area of the country can have a direct impact on other areas of the country. Court decisions upholding Treaty rights in western Canada have benefited NDNs in the east and vice versa. The question of Metis citizenship is very much up in the air. I would be very concerned if PODIA carpet baggers dominate and control citizenship down east and set a precedent that undermines Metis citizenship out west. This doesn’t mean I want to become involved in your internal politics. I remember attending the Constitutional Conferences on Aboriginal Rights back in the 80s. The Feds were always asking us about our position on Aboriginal rights. One of the Chiefs asked what was the governments position on Aboriginal rights. Their spokesman said he needed to get a legal opinion. When he came back he told the Chiefs it was the position of the Federal Government that the only Aboriginal right we had was the right to surrender our rights. This is what we are up against but despite this we keep winning in the courts. The potential for a precedent detrimental to all Indians requires some vigilance. These divisions in the east are being watched with some concern. Please understand I'm not so much cynical but concerned.

[Moma_porcupine]

Looks like there has been some concerns for a while....

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3f7827a1-d524-4c56-a6f4-d86bb1aada68

"I challenge you to demand that the Congress of Aboriginal People issue proof of their membership and aboriginal ancestry," wrote Jean-Guy Whiteduck, the longtime chief of the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg reserve. "Mr. Brazeau and his father were reinstated into the Kitigan Zibi Amishinabeg First Nation," continued Mr. Whiteduck, "after the 1985 C-31 amendments to the Indian Act. Mr. Brazeau never resided on the reserve and was raised in the town of Maniwaki and had little or no contact with reserve life in all his years of existence."

Chief Lawrence Joseph of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations wrote the minister to say he had "grave concerns regarding the structure of CAP, its funding, its electoral process and its influence on national and federal issues."

Angus Toulouse, regional chief of Ontario, wrote to Mr. Brazeau personally, demanding he "cease and desist your irresponsible and unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimately elected First Nation's leadership."

In an attempt to get the courts to recognize the Treaty right of individual descendents , outside of the community authority of First Nation community on an Indian reserve,   CAP claims to represent 850,000 Métis, off-reserve and non-status Indians. This can be seen in the link below.

http://www.constitutional-law.net/bernard.doc

I tried to learn how many people have actually signed up for membership in all the provincial CAP affilates, but this information isn't easy to find.

But some of the numbers I did find don't seem to add up....

According to the 2006 census, in all of Canada , there is only  1,172,785 people who self identify as Aboriginal or metis/ mixed blood.

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-594/search-recherche/lst/page.cfm?Lang=E&GeoCode=13

More information found on the AFN website explains this further...

http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=2918

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is the national organization representing First Nations in Canada. There are 756,700 First Nations people in Canada

According to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, of the total Status Indian population:

    * 62 percent live on-reserve (471,900).
    * 38 percent reside off-reserve (284,800) in urban, rural, special access and remote areas.

Aboriginal people who live on reserve are not eligible to become members of CAP.

So ,subtracting the 471,000 registered Indians who live on a reserve from the 1,172,785 recorded as claiming an Aboriginal or metis identity in the 2006 census leaves only 700,885, meaning that when CAP is claiming to represent 850,000 Aboriginal people , it is claiming it represents about 149,000 more Aboriginal people than identified themselves as Aboriginal or mixed blood/ metis in the census.

And presumably many of the people who do identify as Aboriginal or metis have never signed up to be members of CAP.

I tried to find some membership numbers for the various provincial affiliates of CAP to see how they got the number 850,000, but with the exception of NB, details for most of the provinces with CAP affiliates is hard to find.
 
In the 1996 census there was 9,180 people in New Brunswick who claimed Aboriginal ancestry, 975 who claimed metis and 120 who claimed Inuit ancestry. In total there was 10,250 in all of New Brunswick who identified themself as being Aboriginal or Metis

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/980113/dq980113-eng.htm

In 1999 the NB CAP affiliate representive Betty Ann LaVallee , claimed to represent 7500 people in NB. This claim can be read in the link below. 

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1039849&
Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=2

Ms. Betty Ann LaVallée (President, New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council):

We represent approximately 7,500 off reserve in New Brunswick.

According to census information, the people claiming Aboriginal ancestry in NB almost doubled in between 1996 and 2006 and according to the NB CAP affiliate website, this organization is now  claiming to represent 28,000 Aboriginal people living in NB .

http://www.nbapc.org/pages/What-is-N.B.A.P.C%3F.html

The N.B.A.P.C. stands for the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, but was once called the New Brunswick Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians. We, at the Council are an Off-Reserve Aboriginal voice for approximately 28,255 Status and Non-Status Aboriginal People who reside in the Province of New Brunswick.

According to Statisics Canada , counting everyone who declared themself as Aboriginal, or Metis in NB in 2006, status and non status, on reserve and off reserve , there is at most 17,655 Status and non status Aboriginal or Metis people in NB.

Of this number there was 10,865 wh0 were Status Indians living in New Brunswick and 7005 of them lived on reserve - and were therefor not eligible to become members of the NB CAP affilliate - leaving only 11,000 people in new brunswick who self identified as Aboriginal in 2006 , who might have been eligible to become represented by CAP.

So where did the NB APC get a full 17,000 more Aboriginal members in NB than was recorded as existing in the 2006 census?

As CAP affiliates are very active in lobbying for both resources and authority to be diverted away from First Nations communities located on reserves, ( see the info in the links highlighted above for examples of this ) , it seems important to be sure the Aboriginal constituents CAP claims to represent, are real.

I'm not that good at math, but the numbers being claimed don't seem to add up, and that does seem like something someone might look into .

[Moma_porcupine]

Here is a link to some statistics and other information I compiled.

It will probably give any normal person a headache. But I was curious about the different numbers and where they all come from. What I found was interesting.

Well, to me anyways ...
 
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcwzmv4g_121d9rjrpdv