The Kelowna Accord was supposed to mark the beginning of the end of the inequality suffered by the Indigenous people living in Canada. This paper argues that the smart financial move for the Harper Government would have been to use the Kelowna Accord as foundation and work up from there when drafting their annual budgets. Instead, he chose to spend an extra $5 billion on them without taking the time to ensure that the money would cause resurgence amongst the Indigenous people. As a result, the majority of the targets established in 2006 have not been met, leaving Trudeau no choice but to invest and additional $8 billion to achieve the very same goals.

The Kelowna Accord had the possibility to solve a multitude of problems that had inadvertently …show more content…
At first the difference does not seem that big (roughly 50% more). However, after being adjusted to inflation (2017) that represents $11 billion and $5.85 billion respectively, which is an immense 180% difference. So, that being said if they spent twice as much as was expected then the outcome should be twice as good. Tables 7,8 and 9 display the goals, as well as the difference between 2006 and 2010 in the three most important areas education, health and employment.

Therefore, the Conservative party was able to surpass the expectations set by the Kelowna Accord in terms of post secondary graduation rate and come just two percent shy of the high school graduation goal. In terms of the amount spent on education the Conservative Party spent $965.3 million (adjusted to inflation) versus the expected $2.086 billion (adjusted to inflation) of the Accord. Therefore suggesting that the Kelowna Accord could have been more ambitious in its targets. Table 7 also demonstrates that the Conservative party might have been correct in assuming that the Kelowna Accord was not a viable