Aside from payments for pensions and benefits through Employment and Social Development Canada and for interest payments on our debt, Canada spends more on indigenous matters than anything else.
You're treating "Indigenous" as synonymous with "First Nations" in some cases here. Each slice of federal spending is going to have a different denominator. For example, funding for the water advisories is used narrowly by First Nations reserve communities. But education funding would include the entire funding of the on-reserve K-12 system, and a post secondary program that provides some partial funding for some First Nations people who live on reserve, those who live elsewhere, and Métis and Inuit people.
The denominator also moves. There are many people identifying as Indigenous now who previously did not, and within the Indigenous population there's shifts between groups. Statcan has discussed this (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/99-011-x/99-011-x2019002-eng.htm). But it mucks up any time series for, say, education or economic outcomes.
Thanks for this. It's important to understand the results of this spending. We also need to scrutinize the methodology of the statistics. One of the unintended consequences of comparing indigenous populations and the general population is masking other factors that may contribute to outcomes. I suspect many of the outcomes attributed to indigenous people are shared by the rural poor who are lost in the general population figures. Can rural populations be, at least in a rough way, teased out of Stats Can's stats? The results might tell us more about how the indigenous spending is working and also show that there is, I suspect, another group of people who historically not been well served.
Excellent point. Although I've discovered that there are so many other layers of complexity surrounding Indigenous issues that I don't know how much value I can contribute.
Isn't part of the disparity in spending accounted for by on-reserve federal spending that would otherwise be the responsibility of the provinces, and by extension municipalities? I'm not sure to what extent that would also apply to off-reserve Indigenous Peoples, but if the equivalent provincial/municipal spending were included, the numbers could be very different. For example, I believe a major point in the child welfare settlement was that federal spending was actually significantly below the equivalent spending by provinces for the rest of the population.
That's certainly possible. Although, for a proper like-to-like comparison, we'd also have to account for the funding Indigenous people receive from general federal programs that isn't included in Indigenous-specific funding.
That's all part of the insane complexity of this whole file that's got me thinking I may be in way over my head here.
Brave post, David! I wonder if posing such a question in the political environment of Trudeaus 'post national' economic zone isn't just some form of hate derived micro-aggression, it will certainly be taken that way by some, but it is a brave post. A much needed post given the staggering numbers, certainly when we as Canadians are grappling with the idea of increasing our defense budget in the era of Trump 2.0. The numbers don't lie... well not as much as politicians.
There is a need for much greater accountability for the spending of the taxpayer money given to the over six hundred First Nations, the leaders of which communities steadfastly resist. Rightly or wrongly, there is a widely held perception that band elites on reserves are enriched while less favoured people are ignored and left to live in substandard housing and under ‘boil water advisories’.
I have no issue with the funding (indeed, as you mention, it is an honourable and historical obligation) but robust auditing is required. Those who resist it should be cut off. Period.
Fairly typical for our governments of all stripes and at all levels (but particularly our Liberal Federal government) to operate on the assumption that making the announcement and spending the money is sufficient. What’s missing is any serious attempt to determine whether or not the spending accomplished anything. Furthermore, once they start spending money on something, it becomes very hard to turn off the tap, even when the spending accomplishes nothing.
Well, that’s one out of about 10 different things they are throwing money at, and while it’s true the number of advisories is lower, you have to marvel at how long it’s taken and what it’s cost.
It’s an unfair comparison because provincial funding doesn’t help anyone on reserves so you would have to compare federal funding on non-indigenous people combined with provincial funding and see where the number was at. I think you would find that indigenous people received less than their fair share of funding on a nationalbasis.
That's probably true. But on the the other hand, my 10 percent figure doesn't take into account all the federal and provincial programs for which all Canadians are eligible - including both on and off-reserve Indigenous.
The truth is though, that comparing "10 percent funding" to "5 percent of the population" isn't important. The main issue is that more than 10 percent of the federal budget is spent on various Indigenous files, so if all that money isn't producing tangible results, then something's very wrong.
Will some well informed person tell me how much of the indigenous affairs budget is spent in Ottawa and various governments versus how much actually gets to the people in need?
You're treating "Indigenous" as synonymous with "First Nations" in some cases here. Each slice of federal spending is going to have a different denominator. For example, funding for the water advisories is used narrowly by First Nations reserve communities. But education funding would include the entire funding of the on-reserve K-12 system, and a post secondary program that provides some partial funding for some First Nations people who live on reserve, those who live elsewhere, and Métis and Inuit people.
The denominator also moves. There are many people identifying as Indigenous now who previously did not, and within the Indigenous population there's shifts between groups. Statcan has discussed this (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/99-011-x/99-011-x2019002-eng.htm). But it mucks up any time series for, say, education or economic outcomes.
Even something simple like counting boil water advisories gets muddied quick, as it includes things like communities that have access to clean water but have kept the advisory in place until longer term issues are addressed or that have operational issues (https://sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1614804984275/1614805007869, https://sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1614716060696/1614716107587 for example)
Thanks for this. It's important to understand the results of this spending. We also need to scrutinize the methodology of the statistics. One of the unintended consequences of comparing indigenous populations and the general population is masking other factors that may contribute to outcomes. I suspect many of the outcomes attributed to indigenous people are shared by the rural poor who are lost in the general population figures. Can rural populations be, at least in a rough way, teased out of Stats Can's stats? The results might tell us more about how the indigenous spending is working and also show that there is, I suspect, another group of people who historically not been well served.
Excellent point. Although I've discovered that there are so many other layers of complexity surrounding Indigenous issues that I don't know how much value I can contribute.
Isn't part of the disparity in spending accounted for by on-reserve federal spending that would otherwise be the responsibility of the provinces, and by extension municipalities? I'm not sure to what extent that would also apply to off-reserve Indigenous Peoples, but if the equivalent provincial/municipal spending were included, the numbers could be very different. For example, I believe a major point in the child welfare settlement was that federal spending was actually significantly below the equivalent spending by provinces for the rest of the population.
That's certainly possible. Although, for a proper like-to-like comparison, we'd also have to account for the funding Indigenous people receive from general federal programs that isn't included in Indigenous-specific funding.
That's all part of the insane complexity of this whole file that's got me thinking I may be in way over my head here.
I think Thomas Sowell has a few quotes about this.
Brave post, David! I wonder if posing such a question in the political environment of Trudeaus 'post national' economic zone isn't just some form of hate derived micro-aggression, it will certainly be taken that way by some, but it is a brave post. A much needed post given the staggering numbers, certainly when we as Canadians are grappling with the idea of increasing our defense budget in the era of Trump 2.0. The numbers don't lie... well not as much as politicians.
There is a need for much greater accountability for the spending of the taxpayer money given to the over six hundred First Nations, the leaders of which communities steadfastly resist. Rightly or wrongly, there is a widely held perception that band elites on reserves are enriched while less favoured people are ignored and left to live in substandard housing and under ‘boil water advisories’.
I have no issue with the funding (indeed, as you mention, it is an honourable and historical obligation) but robust auditing is required. Those who resist it should be cut off. Period.
Fairly typical for our governments of all stripes and at all levels (but particularly our Liberal Federal government) to operate on the assumption that making the announcement and spending the money is sufficient. What’s missing is any serious attempt to determine whether or not the spending accomplished anything. Furthermore, once they start spending money on something, it becomes very hard to turn off the tap, even when the spending accomplishes nothing.
Did you not see the very significant improvement in the drinking water issue?
Well, that’s one out of about 10 different things they are throwing money at, and while it’s true the number of advisories is lower, you have to marvel at how long it’s taken and what it’s cost.
It’s an unfair comparison because provincial funding doesn’t help anyone on reserves so you would have to compare federal funding on non-indigenous people combined with provincial funding and see where the number was at. I think you would find that indigenous people received less than their fair share of funding on a nationalbasis.
That's probably true. But on the the other hand, my 10 percent figure doesn't take into account all the federal and provincial programs for which all Canadians are eligible - including both on and off-reserve Indigenous.
The truth is though, that comparing "10 percent funding" to "5 percent of the population" isn't important. The main issue is that more than 10 percent of the federal budget is spent on various Indigenous files, so if all that money isn't producing tangible results, then something's very wrong.
Will some well informed person tell me how much of the indigenous affairs budget is spent in Ottawa and various governments versus how much actually gets to the people in need?
Between bureaucrats, general corruption and a complete lack of accountability it’s amazing that the results are even as good as the charts indicate.
That table on education, could the columns not go from lowest year to highest left to right?
Yeah. That drove me nuts, too. But that's the way Statistics Canada presented the data and I couldn't be bothered to reorder the rows. :)