Evidence of meeting #45 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Policy Analyst, Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Whether individual citizens can comment on the minutiae of a bill.... Is that really fair, on any bill, that every single person can comment on every clause and every section?
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Okay. I hear what you're saying.
I do have a third question I'm trying to squeeze in here, and it's for Mr. Craig.
Own-source revenue is being characterized by Mr. Graham as something that essentially should be accountable to the public because it's like a transfer or it's public funds.
Are you aware of any first nations whose businesses actually come from investments they made with funds that are their own band's funds, possibly from a settlement, and when those funds are in their hands, that is their money because they traded off something for that? Or are you aware of any cases where the band actually took out a loan—secured by the assets they were purchasing—to run their business, in which case it's not public transfer of funds for these businesses?
Prairie Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I think under both scenarios you're talking about public funds, maybe not so much from the taxpayers' perspective but from the band members' perspective.
When a band owns a business, whether it's a gas station or a casino or some kind of other enterprise, it's the collective members of that community who own it.
What we've heard loudly and clearly from grassroots band members is that if money from, say, a gas station is going to pay the chief or a councillor, band members want to know about that. They want to know the total compensation package that their elected officials are receiving.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
So to whom should that information be disclosed? If from your perspective the band is accountable to its members, to whom should that information be then disclosed?
And who should have the right to see that information—the general public?
Prairie Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Yes; I don't see a problem with that.
Again, we've heard from band members that they like the idea of putting this information on the Internet so that they can access it anonymously. They're aware of the fact that when you put the information on the Internet, everyone has access to it.
On the idea—
Prairie Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
—that this is commercially sensitive information, it's not really. I mean, when you see that the chief is getting $5,000 or $25,000 in “other revenue”, it doesn't tell you what entity it's coming from or that. So it's—
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Okay, but what we're talking about now is who they are accountable to, which is, you're saying, their band members, and who they're being forced to disclose to, which is a far wider group than that.
Would you say that's consistent with public sector accounting standards?
Prairie Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Well, no, and again, let me be clear. We support the legislation, as it's drafted right now, to assure that politicians on reserves disclose their full pay package to the public.
Liberal
Prairie Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
And that would be included, yes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Ms. Murray, your time is up, but I'm hopeful you'll get another round of questions.
Conservative
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming in today to testify before the committee.
I'll go back to a story I spoke to last committee. Coming from a former RCMP background...and I know that Mr. Wilks probably has the same type of scenarios brought forward from band members who are concerned about where their allotment of funding is going.
I have one case that stands out, right in Saskatchewan itself. This is in regard to TLE money, treaty land entitlement, where actually it became, for some first nations leaders, for chief and council, almost a personal slush fund that they could use at their own discretion. Now what has happened, after audited statements from the government, is that criminal charges have been proceeded with, and you've seen some of those leaders ousted from their political seats.
I've had personal experience where first nations leaders are elected...from chief and council, where they get an education credit card and they proceed to buy a brand-new car and televisions and other furnishings for their own homes. I've seen that take place. The list goes on and on.
When first nations individuals come forward and they want to testify, or they're trying to get the information, they're threatened—one, for homes; two, for jobs; three, as social outcasts, because they're going against the grain.
Let me point out one of the questions I have here. It's in regard to the access to information process to gain this information for accountability. In order to confirm the client's membership, they would have to consult with the band; they cannot do that without first obtaining their written consent to disclose their identity to the band. So right there, they're in a catch-22: they come forward, they're going to get punished. If they are willing to have them approach the band, they are asked to complete the authorization to disclose their identity.
That's where I think the Taxpayers Federation comes forward and creates a gap, or protects the client's identity, so that there are no reprisals on them. And that's where I think this bill is going—one, to make first nations leaders accountable, and two, to protect the innocent. This is what this bill is about—to protect the innocent and make sure that the band chiefs and elected officials are accountable.
What I've also seen take place.... We've talked about own-source revenue. But we've also seen, for crown corporations, where a chief will sit on a board, for SaskPower, for SaskEnergy, and get supplemental income.
The band members don't know that their chiefs are getting this extra money, that they're travelling. Sometimes what's happening is they're double-dipping, triple-dipping, in funding while on travel. Instead of getting one per diem, or two per diems, they're getting three, and just for one meeting.
That's what I find really disheartening. I don't know if the opposition get that. From my angle, I don't think so.
I think as elected leaders—myself, being first nations—everyone has to be accountable. If taxpayers are spending money on a first nations chief, on myself as a member of Parliament, on a mayor, on a councillor, even on a reeve, on anyone who receives any type of tax benefits or any income coming in from taxes, they have to be accountable. That's about transparency.
Now, we've heard some of the stories. Can you tell me—any one of you—about some of the obstacles that band members have faced when trying to access this information?
President, Peguis Accountability Coalition
I'll answer that one. Being a band member, I've applied numerous times. I have a stack of requests from me and other band members, and I've never had a response on one of my requests.
Sometimes I went to Aboriginal Affairs. Sometimes they were helpful. They gave it to me if they had it, but I had to go through the process of proving I was a band member and that I had requested it from the band first.
From there I would go to Aboriginal Affairs in Winnipeg. It takes time and effort, and sometimes they gave it to me if they were allowed, and other times I was told to send my information away to Ottawa. That's a long process. By the time I got information back, sometimes I'd forgotten that I requested it. Often by the time I got it back it was irrelevant.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Could the Taxpayers Federation answer that as well?
Policy Analyst, Frontier Centre for Public Policy
As far as some of the consequences you were speaking about, I'm just thinking back.... Before I got into what I do now, in policy analysis, I worked in aboriginal media. I worked at a newspaper called The Drum /First Perspective, which prided itself on accountability, transparency, and trying to be more of a muckraking type of independent newspaper for first nations.
One of the things I always remember is receiving information, usually things through the fax, about remuneration, salaries, travel expenses, special needs program vouchers—all these things. I'd get them through the fax or sent in a brown manila envelope to my office. Then I'd finally get a hold of someone, and no one would be able to go on the record. Some of the main things they would say are, “I don't want to get cut off social assistance” or “I'm up for housing and I don't want to jeopardize that” or “My child is going into post-secondary education and I'm worried about getting an allotment of band funds for that”. As a journalist, I was not really able to do anything with that.
That's the kind of situation we have with first nations, and Phyllis alluded to that. You're being punted between Aboriginal Affairs or the RCMP, and then, adding insult to injury, often being told to go back to chief and council. When you're alleging mismanagement against them, you have to go speak to them. It's the worst kind of conflict of interest you have to face.
The only other way is to go through the media, or to send something to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, or to us, the Frontier Centre. That's the only way the first nations have.
If service delivery is not separated, not insulated from elected politics, and if they don't have a board of directors that isn't accountable to chief and council, then the concentration of power causes the worst kinds of consequences.
Conservative
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll address Mr. Craig here. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, according to the Canadian Bar Association, came out with a paper in 2010, which kind of exacerbated this issue. Here is what they say:
CTF claimed that 160 First Nations' leaders earn more than their respective provincial premiers, and 50 were paid more than the Prime Minister. CTF also alleged that over 600 First Nations' officials received an income equivalent to $100,000 off reserve. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) expressed concern with CTF's methodology, noting that its calculations included travel expenses and per diems. Based on AFN's recalculations, First Nations' officials were paid an average of $36,845 per year. AFN found that only 3% of chiefs and councillors earned over $100,000, less than 1% more than their provincial premiers, and none more than the Prime Minister. AFN also said that CTF's use of “taxable equivalents” inflated salaries and suggested exorbitant income. AFN noted that the use of the term “taxable equivalent” overlooks the fact that not all band council members are status Indians and therefore do not benefit from tax exemptions for income earned on reserve. Further, it does not acknowledge the historical and constitutional basis for such arrangements.
Your group has come out with a document where you've used figures in a creative fashion to create an aura around the first nations and their councillors' and chiefs' remuneration. Is that not the case?
Prairie Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
No, absolutely not. In fact, some of the numbers you have quoted there, that the AFN used, are from the federal government, and we have advised the federal government that those numbers were incorrect. We've advised the bureaucracy that the numbers were wrong. They looked at some of the pay information, not others....
If you look at a pay sheet from a reserve...there are often, I believe, four columns: salary, honorarium, other, and travel. On the “other” column, I believe the federal government's numbers didn't include that, even though it's pay. If you look at the travel column...quite often that includes pay as well. It's not just a reimbursement for airfare, hotels, and those types of expenses. We saw some examples where someone expensed over $100,000 in travel. How could a reserve politician expense over $100,000 in travel and receipts? It just doesn't happen. What it is, is that there are per diems in there for going on trips.
So those numbers were wrong that were provided by the AFN. We stand by the numbers as the best possible estimates we could provide. We've also noted, as I said earlier in our recommendations, that the travel column should be clarified, so that going forward it's clear that it should not include pay for attending different trips and so that money would be put into the other categories and people could see what's happening.
Let's be clear: we do know of some very clear examples where reserve politicians were making more than the Prime Minister of Canada.
Look at Shirley Clarke from the Glooscap First Nation. Talk to her today. You don't have to call her “chief”, because she's not a chief anymore. Her community was disgusted by what was going on and they turfed her out.
Prairie Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
If you talk to Ms. Phyllis Sutherland, she can tell you about her chief's—
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Okay. I thank you for your comments. My time is limited, so I think I'll move on to my next question, because quite clearly the discussion about this, as I mentioned earlier, is the discussion about the relative role between governments.
Now, you obviously have all the information from many, many first nations. You've been able to get that information. That's provided because those funds are public funds and that information is accounted for by the federal minister in an arrangement with first nations governments. Is that not correct?