Indigenous Critic Backs Brodie’s Question: Where Did the Residential School Money Go?

June 6, 2026 · iVoteOneBC research desk

A viral Facebook video from Bernadette Anderson is cutting through the usual political lines in B.C. Anderson says she does not normally side with Dallas Brodie, but argues Brodie is asking a legitimate question: when public money is approved for residential-school investigations, where did it go, what work has been completed, and when will ordinary people see clear answers?

The official federal funding list now shows major sums attached to the two B.C. files at the centre of the public debate. Under the Residential Schools Missing Children Community Support funding, Crown-Indigenous Relations lists Tk’emlúps First Nation at $9,517,357 for 2021 to 2026 and Williams Lake First Nation at $8,615,061 for 2021 to 2025. Combined, that is more than $18.1 million in federal funding connected to community-led work around missing children and former residential-school sites.

That does not mean the money was misused. It does mean taxpayers, survivors, families and community members are entitled to plain-language answers about what the money funded and what results have been produced.

Dallas Brodie’s political opponents often try to reduce every question about Indigenous policy to a culture-war fight. That is too easy. The better question is more practical: if government created a program to help communities locate, document, maintain and commemorate sites connected to missing children, then the public should be able to see what that program has actually delivered.

The federal program guidelines say eligible work can include gathering local knowledge from Survivors, families and Elders; field investigation; searches; commemoration; mental-health supports; and community-led planning. Much of that work is sensitive. Some information may properly remain private to protect survivors and families. But privacy is not a blanket excuse for zero public accounting.

The power of Anderson’s video is that it does not come from an outside partisan voice attacking Indigenous people. It comes from an Indigenous critic demanding accountability from leadership. Her message is angry, blunt and uncomfortable. But the core public-policy point is fair: ordinary band members should not be expected to stay silent when major sums are announced and visible answers remain limited.

That is the lane OneBC should hold: do not attack Indigenous people, do not mock survivors, do not deny the residential-school system’s damage. Demand receipts from institutions. Demand outcomes from government. Demand transparency from everyone who receives public money.

This is especially important because residential-school investigations occupy a uniquely sensitive place in Canadian public life. Governments lowered flags. Media outlets broadcast the stories globally. Schools, municipalities, churches and businesses changed ceremonies, language and public protocols. If the public is asked to treat these findings as matters of national consequence, then the public is also entitled to responsible follow-up.

A fair accountability standard would not require communities to expose private survivor testimony or sacred cultural information. It would require basic public reporting:

• How much funding has been received under each agreement?
• How much has been spent, and on what categories of work?
• What fieldwork, archival research, ground searches, technical studies or survivor-support activities have been completed?
• What remains outstanding?
• What timeline exists for the next public update?
• What independent audit or plain-language financial report is available to members?
• Which information is confidential, and why?

Those are not hostile questions. They are normal questions in a democracy.

The B.C. NDP has spent years presenting itself as the guardian of reconciliation. But reconciliation cannot mean writing cheques, issuing statements, and then telling citizens not to ask what happened next. Real reconciliation should mean truth, responsibility and measurable results — including accountability inside systems the government funds.

This is where Brodie’s question has traction. Even people who dislike her politics can recognize the public-interest issue. Anderson’s video proves that the demand for transparency is not simply coming from outside Indigenous communities. It is also coming from people who say the current system leaves ordinary First Nations members without enough voice, enough oversight, or enough power to challenge leadership.