Shining a light

If the controversial First Nations Financial Transparency Act has achieved anything, it’s to correct an unfair public perception that most aboriginal leaders are highly overpaid.

At the same time, the legislation has shone a well-deserved spotlight on the relatively few who are.

In other words, the controversial law — which requires First Nations that receive billions in federal funds every year to publicly disclose their spending, including the remuneration and expenses of chiefs and councillors — is turning out to be a striking success.

Using compensation figures posted on the Aboriginal Affairs website under the act, the Star’s Joanna Smith found the median amount of salary and honorarium earned by chiefs in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, was a fairly modest $60,000.

She also found eight chiefs who took no remuneration, 34 who received less than $10,000 and another 41who got between $10,000 and $20,000.

That’s a far cry from revelations about the salaries of some First Nations chiefs going back as far as 2000, which spurred calls for making their finances public. One example from that era: Chief Allison Bernard of the Eskasoni First Nation on Cape Breton Island earned $416,500 tax-free for one 14-month period. (That’s the taxable equivalent of $770,000. The prime minister himself is paid only $327,000.)

Things are much different now. Data filed under the transparency act show that only three of 647 chiefs surveyed received more than $240,000 in the year ending March 31, 2014.

Still, the act is revealing questionable salaries and economic practices to band members who had been in the dark before it was passed.

Members of the tiny Kwikwetlem First Nation in British Columbia, for example, were surprised to find out their chief, Ron Giesbrecht, was paid $914,219. A full $800,000 of it was an “economic development” bonus. The band’s population is only 82.

And the Shuswap First Nation in B.C. dumped their longtime chief, Paul Sam, after learning he was earning more than $200,000 a year for presiding over 87 members.

The government is also rightly ensuring First Nations members can demand accountability by insisting that all bands post their financial information. So far, all but 28 of 582 First Nations subject to the legislation have met that requirement. The five bands who have declared they will not are being taken to court by Ottawa.

That has its own risks for leaders. When the 5,500 member Onion Lake Cree Nation in Alberta and Saskatchewan declared it was going to court to fight the act, it drew the ire of unhappy members who would rather see funds used for services than for legal costs.

In its first year the transparency act has already opened taxpayers’ eyes to the fact the great majority of First Nations chiefs are not highly overpaid. And it’s allowed First Nations to demand accountability from their leadership. Band members and taxpayers alike can be happy with that.

Act is correcting an unfair public perception that most aboriginal leaders are highly overpaid