Part II: What We Learned About the Distribution of Federal Grants and Contributions for Aboriginal People - Where Does the Money Go?
The largest portion of the 2006 – 2007 transfers are to Band Councils.
Of the $5.6 billion identified Grants and Contributions, $3,748,881,596 (67%) is transferred directly to Band Councils.
Organizations created or mandated by Band Councils to serve reserve-based populations are the second largest group of recipients.
This group of recipients includes tribal councils, First Nation health, education and social service agencies, the Assembly of First Nations and its affiliated Provincial/Territorial Organizations (PTOs). This group of recipients received approximately $1.3 billion (23%) of the total identified Grants and Contribution funding.
Type of Recipient Organization
G&C
Tribal Councils
$423,031,654
Child and Family Service Agencies
236,593,039
Provincial/Territorial Organizations
86,698,984
First Nation Health Organizations
164,682,389
First Nation Governance Organizations
240,839,370
First Nation Education Organizations
110,124,563
Assembly of First Nations
24,459,352
First Nation Non-Governmental Organizations
2,253,953
TOTAL
$1,288,683,304
An additional 1.6% of federal Grants and Contributions were transferred directly by the Federal Government to Provincial and Municipal Governments to provide services to reserve based populations
Type of Recipient Organization
G&C
Transfers to Provincial Education Authorities (Tuition Agreement payments)
$72,979,573
Transfers to Municipal Governments
20,772,678
TOTAL
$93,752,251
The distribution of federal grants and contribution funding between on and off reserve Aboriginal people appears to be disproportionate to the residency of the Aboriginal population.
Type of Recipient Organization (On Reserve)
2006/2007 G&C
Band Councils
$3,748,881,596
Organizations Mandated by Band Councils
1,288,683,304
Provincial/Municipal Transfers
$93,752,251
TOTAL
$5,131,317,151
Based on the information contained in the Proactive Disclosure system, it appears that (minimally) 92% of the identified Grants and Contributions were allocated to support reserve-based recipients. Statistical information about the composition and residency of Aboriginal populations is included in Appendix B and Appendix C.
The balance of the identified grants and contributions include programs and services that are delivered in urban and rural communities and are generally available to all Aboriginal people, regardless of their status under the Indian Act. The exception to this would be programs provided by organizations affiliated with the Metis National Council, which tend to provide services to members of those Metis organizations only.
Type of Recipient Organization (Off Reserve)
2006/2007 G&C
Friendship Centers
$119,904,678
Metis National Council and Affiliated Organizations
30,132,353
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and Affiliated Organizations
8,986,428
Contributions to Aboriginal Culture and Arts
30,636,517
Aboriginal Non-Governmental Organizations
17,431,117
Aboriginal Education Programs & Academic Research
46,200,306
Aboriginal Health Programs
13,814,560
TOTAL
$267,105,959
On vs. Off Reserve Expenditures
2006/2007 G&C
% Of Total
On Reserve
$5,131,317,151
91.5
Off Reserve
267,105,959
4.7
Unclear
208,242,381
3.7
TOTAL
$5,606,665,491
100*
*Amount does not total 100 % due to rounding.
Our analysis concluded that approximately 5% of the 2006 – 2007 reported Grants and Contributions were allocated to organizations that supported off reserve Aboriginal people, or were of benefit to all Aboriginal people, regardless of residency.
Of the Grants and Contributions we analyzed, approximately 4% could not be categorized as either on or off reserve expenditures, due to a lack of information about the program or recipient. However, the trend is clear: 92% of federal Aboriginal Grants and Contributions we identified are directed towards the 30% of the Aboriginal population who live on reserve.
There is some justification for what appears to be a significant disparity. Funding that directly relates to service delivery (education, health and social services, infrastructure) is provided to Band Councils and their specialized or delegated service delivery organizations to provide these services on reserve, while off reserve people access these services primarily through provincial and municipal governments.
However, there is no similar justification for the disparity between funding for the National Aboriginal and Regional (Provincial/Territorial) organizations, who (for the most part) do not provide services. These organizations, typically referred to as “representative organizations”, exist as political bodies to coordinate policy, consultation, and negotiation activities on behalf of their member organizations, and ultimately, their Constituencies.
The distribution of funds between representative organizations is inequitable.
National Aboriginal Organizations & Regional Affiliates
2006/2007 G&C
% Representative Funding
Assembly of First Nations (National Indian Brotherhood)
$111,158,336
67
Metis National Council
30,132,353
18
Native Women’s Association of Canada
10,555,925
6
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
8,986,428
5
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
5,189,732
3
TOTAL
$166,022,774
100*
*Amount does not total 100% due to rounding.
Readers are cautioned that some of the above organizations have significant amounts reported in the 2006 – 2007 fiscal year that are in fact multi-year contributions. This is particularly true for the Metis National Council and the Native Women’s Association of Canada. If adjusted to reflect the actual 2006 – 2007 cash flow for those multi-year contributions, the disparity between the representative organization funding increases.
Aboriginal programming is delivered in departmentalized silos that do not support broader, strategic objectives.
There is general agreement that economic development will reduce Aboriginal dependency and increase individual and community well being. We identified federal contributions for economic development activities scattered across 14 different federal departments.
The information available to us on economic development funding is incomplete, but entirely instructive about the nature of Aboriginal program funding in Canada today. The information in the following table is incomplete because it includes only those recipients who were not classified as band or tribal councils, or PTOs. Accordingly, the data in the table below is limited to recipients who were uniquely funded to undertake economic development activities or projects. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development provides (within the “batched” grants and contributions to bands and tribal councils) funds for economic development activities such as advisory services. It is currently not possible to determine from the G&C disclosure what portion of transfers to these organizations relates to economic development. Readers should be aware, therefore, that the actual federal expenditures for Aboriginal economic development is significantly higher than the table below indicates.
Furthermore, our data is incomplete because Industry Canada reported Aboriginal Business Canada contributions without specifying the program, and Service Canada’s Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy 2006 – 2007 funding was reported in a previous year (multi year contribution) and is therefore not included in 2006-2007 database.
Department
Economic Development Reported G&Cs
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
$35,288,747
Fisheries and Oceans
11,526,651
Industry Canada
8,773,399
Western Economic Diversification
8,420,027
Canada Economic Development for Quebec
2,126,118
Agriculture Canada
758,232
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
428,795
Canadian Heritage
400,000
Natural Resources Canada
328,412
Health Canada
248,480
Service Canada
119,337
Environment Canada
75,000
Department of Foreign Affairs (International Trade)
60,860
Department of Justice
60,000
TOTAL
$68,614,058
According to the Department of Indian and Northern Development’s Report on Plans and Priorities for 2006 – 2007, the anticipated economic development program spending for that year (excluding capital infrastructure) was $630 million. Existing Proactive Disclosure reporting makes it impossible to distinguish how much of that planned spending was allocated to band or tribal councils, both of whom are funded for economic development services by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The amount of money and the number of agencies involved in Aboriginal economic development attests to the fact that the federal government recognizes its importance as a strategic objective. However, any attempt to analyze this single “priority” within the big picture of federal grants and contributions for Aboriginal programs quickly demonstrates the “fatal flaw” in existing Aboriginal program funding. An Aboriginal person interested in pursuing self employment or developing a small business must identify appropriate business advisory services and funding support, but it becomes an exercise of “running madly off in all directions”. The potential entrepreneur’s plans may be restricted by his/her “status”, residency, affiliation with a specific band or organization, or a lack of clarity over permitting and licensing for his project. The situation is further exacerbated by the availability of provincial, territorial, municipal or regional program availability, which may or may not complement the federal funding.
We are not suggesting that any federal department, provincial, territorial or municipal government withdraw funding to reduce complexity. Rather, that before additional investment is made in economic development, that all parties work together to ensure that the program delivery infrastructure is re-designed to reduce overall administration costs for providing these services and maximize their accessibility and effectiveness for potential clients.
