B.C. chief gets $900,000 in pay, nearly three times what PM makes

[BeefcakeBo]

I'd say the chiefs are doing a great job as well.

I have to agree with this. It's not like the government is really having to put any effort into this. I'm not saying the government is doing things a lot better with all the scandals ect. but most first nations chiefs are not going to look good after this.

[ilduce39]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/first-nations-transparency-act-may-do-more-harm-than-good-hayden-king-1.2725654

First Nations Transparency Act may do more harm than good: Hayden King

Aboriginal people may find themselves with even less power to create change

This week the federal government's legislation, The First Nations Financial Transparency Act (FNFTA), was made law.

Financial statements and salaries of First Nation council's were posted on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's website earlier this week. And those councils who refuse to participate will face a court order.

According to Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt, this is an effort to provide First Nations people with transparency and allow them to hold their elected leaders accountable. In other words, to empower them.

Given the early reactions to the publication of this data, I don’t share the assessment. So what can we expect?

First, we can expect the media to find a handful of chief and councils that pay themselves unjustifiable salaries.

This reporting has already begun and at least one B.C. chief has found himself on national news broadcasts and other national media for consecutive days.

Few will ask critical questions about the consequences of First Nations (which are often both governments and corporations) disclosing the details of business dealings with current and/or future negotiating partners.Of course, this information is important to know. But we can also expect the media to do little else. Few will cover the hundreds of chiefs and/or councils that make $10,000 a year. Few will examine the extreme AANDC underfunding this new data reveals.

Second, because of the likely superficial media reporting we can expect many to run with the popular "corrupt chief" narrative to shape their desired policy changes.

Many so-called experts on First Nations peoples in the media and politics will generalize to indict all leaders as taxpayer leeches (though the language will be more delicate).

Certainly we'll see organizations like The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which spearheaded the legislation in the first place, use the generalization to call for the erosion of treaties, end of "special" Indian status, privatization of reserves, etc. While taxpayer activism is certainly common, it seems to provoke a special kind of fury when involving Indigenous Peoples.

Third, we can probably expect many Canadians to harden their perspectives on First Nations peoples.

With the media likely focusing on the corrupt-chiefs problem and the so-called experts proposing assimilatory solutions, that will be confirmation for many that the Indian problem is the Indian's own fault.

And since the challenges indigenous people face will be perceived as a self-inflicted suffering, many Canadians will feel absolved of any responsibility to First Nations, and will instead feel permitted to castjudgement and simply wait for civilization to reach the natives.

In short, the transparency act will be an effective tool to solidify apathy and disengagement with indigenous perspectives and ideas.

Fourth, we can probably also expect the federal government to double-down on the unilateral "aboriginal" policy that has been ongoing for some time.

This includes stripping communities of power in areas of social policy, extinguishing rights and title, reducing program resources, and generally trying to transform communities into municipalities under provincial jurisdiction.

With the First Nation leadership being stripped of legitimacy, and Canadians oscillating between aloof and angry, much of the opposition to this increasingly transformative trend will be neutralized. The FNFTA may actually grant AANDC greater licence to intervene in the lives of indigenous peoples.

Finally, we can expect First Nations people to use this data to continue to hold their leadership accountable.

The reality is that most communities already have access to this information (and much more) and generally they do not skirt or ignore issues of bad governance.

From the broad Idle No More movement to specific cases like the ongoing Wahta Community Fire in central Ontario (where a Kanien'kehá:ka community shut down its administrative building because the band council wasn't following transparency rules), the formal and more provocative examples of communities holding leaders accountable and pushing for new (or very old) governance models independent of the Indian Act are numerous.

All of this is not an argument against the legislation itself or an endorsement of the status quo.

Aside from the obvious absurdity of Canada continuing to dictate to and administer First Nation communities, the content of the legislation is relatively benign. But the consequences may be significant.

In an era where reconciliation seems more to mean confrontation and our public discourse is often shallow, every new policy, law, court decision, protest and blockade is a struggle to shape the narrative.

Despite what Bernard Valcourt claims about the FNFTA, First Nations may find themselves with even less power to create change.

This article eloquently echoes my thoughts / concerns.

[The Bookie]

Very good article ilduce, thanks.

I'm not naturally political and have only followed this story peripherally, but my gut reaction is this part of a larger plan to create turmoil within First Nations communities that will obscure the various pipeline / mining / other resource cash cow projects on the horizon.

[Green Building]

Interesting update here, I think each of the 2 bold sections highlight a portion of arguments on either side of the situation.

Ron Giesbrecht, the chief of an 85-member First Nation who ranked as Canada’s highest-paid politician last year, collected most of his nearly $1-million income by abandoning a land claim in exchange for an $8-million payment from the Province of B.C.

Rough details of the arrangement were revealed to the National Post by the B.C. Ministry of Finance, which said the Kwikwetlem First Nation was paid to “extinguish” future claims on a plot of Crown land that was being sold off by the province.

Mr. Giesbrecht collected a 10% bonus amounting to $800,000 thanks to his dual role as the economic development officer for the band.

Despite Mr. Giesbrecht’s prior claims that the deal could not be publicized because of a non-disclosure agreement, the Ministry said the province “could release the details of the agreement if the First Nation agree”— provided the document checks out with the Freedom of Information Act.

In a statement to the National Post Tuesday, Kwikwetlem authorities refused to make any comment related to the $8-million deal, maintaining that “the transaction remains subject to a non-disclosure agreement.”

“Ensuring a level of transparency while also respecting the confidentiality of these arrangements is a broader issue for First Nations,” the statement added.

The chief did not respond to requests for an interview.

On Monday, Ron Jackman, the unofficial spokesman for Kwikwetlem members opposed to Mr. Giesbrecht’s leadership, said he was turned away by band administrators after questioning them about the $8-million being tied to an extinguished land claim.

“They’re shutting me down,” he said. “Now they’re saying they can’t give me any information without the membership’s say-so and without the chief and council’s say-so.”

Last month, a new federal law required the salaries of chiefs and band councillors to be posted on the Internet. The figures revealed that Mr. Giesbrecht collected $914,219 for 2013-14 — effectively making him the highest-paid elected official in Canadian history.

In an Aug. 1 statement, the Kwikwetlem band office explained that much of the income was due to an $800,000 payment stemming from “an agreed 10% bonus for economic development contracts for the Kwikwetlem First Nation.”

The 10% bonus was written into the economic development officer contract long before Mr. Giesbrecht took over the position last year, although band members did not appear to be aware of its existence.

In the hours after Mr. Giesbrecht’s salary was revealed, the nation’s only two councillors, Ed Hall and Marvin Joe, both said they did not know of the arrangement, or the six-figure bonus.

“Nobody here gets 10% of anything significantly large like that — it just doesn’t happen,” Mr. Hall told the National Post at the time.

The bonus provisions were removed in April, according to a Kwikwetlem statement.

Neither the province nor the Kwikwetlem would specify what parcel of land is at the centre of the $8-million deal, although it is likely Burke Mountain, a 236-hectare plot of land near the Kwikwetlem reserve.

The province sold the land last year as part of an austerity-driven liquidation of “surplus assets.” As the Burke Mountain lands are untreatied, B.C. would have been legally bound to address any aboriginal claim to the land before turning it over to a private buyer.

In unrelated filings before the British Columbia Utilities Commission in 2010, the Kwikwetlem claimed that Burke Mountain was home to “spiritual sites” as a well as traditional hunting and berry picking sites.

After the deal closed last year, Kwikwetlem band members have told the National Post that they each received checks for $10,000. Mr. Jackman said an accompanying letter mentioned the pending Burke Mountain development.

Last week, reacting against calls that he should resign, Mr. Giesbrecht released a statement saying that he retains full support of 53 of 57 voting Kwikwetlem members — and launched a YouTube channel filled with video testimonials from supporters.

“He has basically taken our First Nation from nothing to everything we have today,” said Mr. Giesbrecht’s brother, Randy.

Since Mr. Giesbrecht’s income became public, even dissident members have acknowledged that the past few years have seen major economic and social gains, including the construction of a new on-reserve housing complex.

Nevertheless, critics allege that Mr. Giesbrecht is taking undue credit for work done by previous leaders.

“It is sad to see this embarrassment of a chief take away from not only the elders who have lived through so much but also the young ones we fight for everyday who will need to continue on with the efforts we have begun,” said on-reserve member Nancy Joe in an email to the National Post.

“We were taught that as a chief and council you do not accept praise — or money — for something that is expected of you which is to look out for one another and do what is right for everyone.”