Actually… appropriate funding is an important part of the solution

A recent editorial in the Globe and Mail (“Accountability, not lack of money, is the real problem on federal reserves”, June 19th 2013) misrepresents the joint CCPA and Save the Children report , Poverty of Prosperity: Indigenous children in Canada. In particular, the Globe editorial claims that “What is eye-catching is the report’s blunt language that says more money won’t actually fix anything until both the federal government bureaucrats who send it and the band leaders who receive it are held accountable for the outcomes of their decisions” and “the report points out that injecting more money into First Nations reserves won’t accomplish a thing until what it accurately describes as a ‘dysfunctional accountability system’ is fixed.”

We’d like to assure readers that this was not at all what we were saying, and a fair reading of the report makes that clear. There is certainly a discussion of accountability and its importance for First Nations in our report. However, that discussion is in the context of how little control First Nations leaders have over funding and how it is allocated. Funding decisions are made in Ottawa by the federal government, cutting First Nations governments out of the loop. As accountability is shifted from the more responsive local governments to distant Ottawa, the results of bad decisions are exacerbated. As we write in the report:

"Excepting the 18 First Nations with completed self-government agree¬ments (modern treaties), the federal government considers First Nations governments as subordinate levels of government to the federal authority and determines the legislative, policy, and accountability structures in place for administering the funding that it determines will be available.

"Without personal or political consequences for decisions that impact the community, whether negatively or positively, the accountability of the federal government is extremely limited.

"Similarly, without the authority over the decisions they administer, First Nations governments have limited accountability for the results of those decisions. The accountability mechanisms that are in place focus on com¬mand and control over spending authorities. Reporting goes from First Na¬tion governments to the federal government, leaving the citizens out of the accountability relationship. Limited information on results is collected, meaning that performance measurement and evaluation cannot be done ef¬fectively, which makes improvements difficult to identify and implement."

It is illogical to argue, as the Globe and Mail editorial does – and as we certainly do not – that money for housing, infrastructure and education won’t help ameliorate the poor conditions that currently exist. Nor, in a paper on child poverty would we ever suggest that that inequities in funding should not be addressed.

The message of the editorial seems to suggest that the responsibility for dysfunction in the accountability relationship must be borne by First Nations through continued underfunding when, in fact, we point out that the federal government sets the legislative and policy foundations for this dysfunction without concern for the desire among First Nations to be accountable to their citizens.

The implication appears to be that any additional funding to bands will be frittered in corruption and mismanagement (although neither of these words is used explicitly).

No government nor private body is free of error. The failure to meet accountability and transparency standards should never mean that whole portions of population are left in deplorable conditions. In the same way that Montreal, and other cities in Canada aren’t cut off of federal infrastructure dollars due to evident corruption, it hardly makes sense to let status First Nations children languish in poverty when government are unable to overcome a failed accountability system they did not create and do not support.

Our report explicitly advocates for the removal of the 2% cap on social service funding on reserves that has been in place since 1996. A cap this tight being in place for so long is unique and inherently unfair compared to social service budgets for almost any other level of government in Canada. The removal of this cap would clearly be new funding.

Allowing First Nations governments themselves to take direct control over how funding is allocated, as is the case with all other levels of government, could further improve the effectiveness of that funding and re-establish much needed accountability between First Nations citizens and their leaders instead of arguing their case with bureaucrats in Ottawa.

While the Globe and Mail is free to express its own views, our report cannot be misrepresented to bolster positions that are critiqued in the report itself. Stating that we in any way support those conclusions is harmful to the greater goal of resolving Canada’s shameful legacy concerning First Nations.

This commentary was written by David Macdonald and Daniel Wilson, co-authors of the report, Poverty of Prosperity: Indigenous children in Canada. It is written in response to the Globe and Mail editorial, “Accountability, not lack of money, is the real problem on federal reserves,” published June 19th 2013.