8/13/2019 Fraser Institute to First Nations Be Glad Its Not 1947 - Analysis by Senwung Luk

1/2

Senwung Luk - Fraser Institute to First Nations: Be glad its not 1947

December 12, 2013Recently, the Fraser Institute released a report, entitled Ever Hiher! "overnment

#pendin on $boriinals since 1%&'() In stories on the report, the media reported author*ar+ *il+e suestin that his study should put to rest any notion that the rindinpoverty on aboriinal reserves is because theyve been shortchaned by -anadianta.payers)( /hats the problem then I thin+ some aboriinal leaders on aboriinalreserves miht be shortchanin some aboriinal people,( *il+e is reported to have told#un es)

Ho does *il+e et to these conclusions He compared ho much the ederalovernment spent on First ations in 1%&', to ho much it spends on First ationstoday, in 2013) 4he numbers, unsurprisinly, are hue) In iures that the report claimsare inlation5ad6usted, the report states that, or instance, hile Indian $airs spent 7'%

million in 1%&', the no5renamed Department o $boriinal $airs and orthernDevelopment spent 7')% billion in 201152012, or an increase o %%5old 8p)%9)

:ut even the Fraser Institute admits that the numbers are a lot less impressive hen youactor in the act that there are a lot more First ations people in -anada no than in1%&') /hen you account or population roth by loo+in at per5person undin, it turnsout that undin only re %5old) 4his, says the report, is much hiher than ederalspendin per5person or all -anadians, hich only re by about &5old in the sameperiod 8p)139)

:ut as ;

8/13/2019 Fraser Institute to First Nations Be Glad Its Not 1947 - Analysis by Senwung Luk

2/2

4he irst thin to note is that any time you tal+ about overnment spendin, it sounds li+ea lot o money) 4he 4oronto Bolice, or e.ample, spends about 71 billion per year) 4hatis a lot, but then 4oronto is a pretty bi city) It or+s out to be about 73>0 per4orontonian per year) Is that a lot *aybe @ but then thats less than a dollar a day tohave a trained proessional ready to come deal ith your problems 2& hours a day, seven

days a ee+)

4he second point is that lie in -anada is pretty dierent no than in 1%&') Here is 6usta partial list o thins that overnments do no that they didnt very much bac+ then!provide health care, provide e.pressays, build airports, support university education,6ust to name a e) #o more money is spent on reserves no than in 1%&') 4hatshouldnt be surprisin because more money is spent by overnments everyhere than in1%&')

$nd money spent by $boriinal $airs isnt necessarily to the beneit o $boriinalpeople) $ bunch o that 7')% billion never reaches any First ations services) For

instance, here is one more thin that $boriinal $airs spends more money on no thatIndian $airs didnt in 1%&'! layers) /hy Cntil 1%>1, First ations ere orbiddenby la rom hirin layers, unless the *inister o Indian $airs ave them permissionto do so) #o the overnment didnt have to orry about challenes to its decisions) ;nthe other hand, today, $boriinal $airs spends more than 7100 million per year inlitiation aainst First ations) 4his, o course, is 7100 million that iures in to theFraser Institute reports 7')% billion o spendin per year, 7100 million that is used tooppose the interests o First ations, some o hich is spent because the ederalovernment itsel has ailed to live up to its constitutional obliations) #ometimes the-ron ill even spend money to o to court to deend the position that it doesnt have tocomply ith a treaty it sined in 1%%3

4he point is this! money spent by $boriinal $airs isnt necessarily to the beneit o$boriinal people)

$ll o this is to say that addin up the dollars spent is an interestin but trite e.ercise thatdoesnt really o to anserin the =uestion o hether enouh is bein spent, hether itis bein spent in the riht ay, and hether the amount bein spent is air)

4hose are much bier =uestions that re=uire a deeper analysis than 6ust loo+in at raspendin numbers) ust to ive a couple o e.amples, consider #hannens Dream, acampain to end une=ual undin or First ations schools or Don Drummond, theormer chie economist at 4D :an+ ho arues even e=ual undin may not be enouh)

#o imaine your spouse as+s you to et some orane 6uice rom the supermar+et) Aou oand you come bac+ ith a piece o stea+ and you tell him, Aou should be happy I ble7>0 on that stea+, hich is a lot more e.pensive than stea+ as in 1%&'( 4he FraserInstitute thin+s he should 6ust be lad its not 1%&') I doubt very many people ouldaree)

2