Indigenous Spending Nears $32B, But Results Still Lacking

The federal government’s 2024-25 budget sets aside nearly $32 billion for Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC). That’s more than what Ottawa is spending on National Defence ($29.9 billion), and over half of what’s being transferred to provinces for health care through the Canada Health Transfer ($52.1 billion).

The number is real. The questions about where it's going are just as real.

Let’s get the facts straight. According to the Main Estimates, ISC will receive $21 billion, while CIRNAC gets $10.9 billion—a total of $31.9 billion in Indigenous-related spending this year. This is not an isolated figure. Ottawa has invested approximately $200 billion since 2015 in Indigenous priorities including education, housing, child welfare, water infrastructure, and more. Yet despite this decade-long investment, persistent gaps remain—and the public has few clear answers on how these funds are making a measurable difference.

Take water infrastructure. Since 2015, 153 long-term boil-water advisories have been lifted—a significant achievement. But as of 2024, 31 communities are still under advisories. $6.3 billion has been invested in water systems alone. That’s progress, but also a sign of delays, capacity issues, and structural inefficiencies in how funds are delivered.

Housing is another area where results fall short. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) estimates that 80% of First Nations housing stock requires major repairs, and says $349 billion is needed by 2030 to close infrastructure gaps. Budget 2024 adds $918 million over five years, but we don’t get consistent data on what that buys—how many homes, where, or how long it will take.

When Canadians ask where the money is going, they’re not questioning the intent. They’re questioning the results. And that’s not “anti-Indigenous”—it’s basic accountability.

Too often, the discussion is reduced to headlines about new funding announcements. For example, Budget 2024 includes another $9 billion over several years: $5 billion for an economic reconciliation loan program, $1.8 billion for child and family services, and hundreds of millions more for health and education. But very little is said about what these billions are expected to achieve—or what happens when they don’t.

The Auditor General and Parliamentary Budget Officer have both flagged issues with oversight. A 2022 report found $863 million in overspending at ISC between 2018 and 2021. The Yellowhead Institute and others have pointed to systemic problems in how funds are distributed—too much bureaucracy, too many layers, and too little direct support for the communities most in need.

There’s also the matter of jurisdictional confusion—a common obstacle when federal, provincial, and Indigenous governments share overlapping responsibilities. In practice, that means delays, duplication, and frustration for communities waiting for basic services.

The comparison to provincial budgets has been used before to highlight spending scale, but it’s not apples to apples. Manitoba’s health budget is $8.2 billion for a population of 1.4 million. ISC’s $21 billion covers not just health care, but housing, child welfare, infrastructure, and education for 1.9 million Indigenous Canadians, many in remote regions where delivery costs are far higher. Still, the comparison underscores the magnitude of the spending and the need to track whether it's improving outcomes.

This is not about cutting funding. It’s about measuring effectiveness. What’s working? What’s not? Where are the gaps? And who’s responsible for fixing them?

Indigenous organizations have long asked for the same thing: greater transparency, direct transfers to communities, and Indigenous-led governance over spending. That’s a conversation worth having. But what can’t continue is the cycle of increasing budgets without clear metrics, evaluations, or accountability frameworks.

Ottawa should commit to an independent audit of Indigenous-related spending—public, accessible, and rigorous. It should set benchmarks for success and link future funding to results, not just intentions. That approach isn’t punitive; it’s responsible. It reflects the same scrutiny any department or program would face if $200 billion had been spent without closing long-standing gaps.

Canadians are willing to invest in reconciliation. But they also want proof that money spent is money well used. That isn’t unreasonable. That’s common sense.

Real reconciliation isn't just about writing larger cheques. It's about ensuring real outcomes—safe housing, clean water, quality education, and accessible health care. Until we can track that clearly, the federal government shouldn't ask Canadians to stop asking questions.

Because accountability doesn’t undermine reconciliation—it strengthens it.