Canadian University Acknowledgment of Indigenous Lands,Treaties, and Peoples

At many Canadian universities it is now common to publicly acknowledge Indigenous lands, treaties, and peoples. Yet, this practice has yet to be considered as a subject of scholarly inquiry. How does this practice vary and why? In this paper we describe the content and practice of acknowledgment, linking this content to treaty relationships (or lack thereof). We show that acknowledgment tends to be one of five general types: of land and title (British Columbia), of specific treaties and political relationships (Prairies), of multiculturalism and heterogeneity (Ontario), of no practice (most of Quebec), and of people, territory, and openness to doing more (Atlantic). Based on these results, we conclude that the fluidity of acknowledgment as a practice, including changing meanings depending on the positionality of the acknowledger, need to be taken into account. Plusieurs universités Canadien pratique une reconnaissance des territoires, des traités, et des peoples autochtone en publique. Cette pratique, cependant, n'a jamais été considérée comme une enquête savante. Dans ce projet nous regardons comment les reconnaissances varie par institution et pourquoi. Nous trouvons qu'il y a un lien entre le contenu des reconnaissances et les relations traité. On démontre cinq forme des reconnaissances: territoire et titre (Colombie britannique); traité spécifique and les relations politiques (Prairies); multiculturalisme et hétérogénéité (Ontario); l'absence (la majorité du Québec); et des peoples, territoire et volonté a plus faire (Atlantique). Nous concluons que la fluidité de la reconnaissance, comme pratique, est fluide et doit prendre en considération la position de la personne qui le fait.     

Estimating the fiscal costs of long‐term jobless families in Australia

Despite substantial costs to society associated with the adverse consequences of joblessness, studies estimating actual costs are rare. This paper identifies the main costs to the Government of long‐term jobless families in Australia. The costs were split into three groups: immediate support costs, immediate opportunity costs, and indirect/intergenerational costs. Using a microsimulation model, the paper estimates the fiscal costs, which include immediate support costs such as the welfare system, and the immediate opportunity costs such as potential revenue from the tax system. We estimate that welfare payments and lost taxation revenue from long‐term joblessness cost the Government AU$5.55 billion per year.