Canadians were told to tighten our belts during COVID-19. Cancel trips. Skip funerals. Close small businesses. Trust the public health orders and trust the people moving “emergency” money.Now we learn that a large share of pandemic funding routed through the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN) is tagged as “questionable,” not because of politics, but because basic documents were missing.That is not a culture war. It is a receipts war.A KPMG forensic audit, commissioned by ISC (the federal department responsible for many indigenous programs), reviewed FSIN funding for April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2024. .MACLEOD: A Seat at the table — rise of the independence movement within the UCP.FSIN is an umbrella organization that represents 74 First Nations in Saskatchewan, not 74 separate band administrations. That distinction matters, because the audit targets the middle layer — the organization that receives and spends public money on administration and program delivery.The audit’s topline number is staggering: $34,251,566 flagged as ineligible, questionable, or unsupported over five years. In plain language, KPMG says some spending did not meet program rules (ineligible), and a much larger portion could not be verified or may not qualify because FSIN did not provide sufficient support (questionable/unsupported)..FSIN received $30,024,786 in COVID-19-related funding. KPMG sampled $26,487,310 in COVID-19 expenditures — and categorized $23,513,292 of that sample as ineligible, questionable, or unsupported. That is about 89% of what KPMG looked at. KPMG lists familiar red flags: missing invoices, missing contracts, and missing proof that deliverables were received or distributed. Most damning, auditors say they could not assess how or if purchased PPE was distributed to the 74 member First Nations, citing a lack of documentation tied to flow-through agreements. .ZEKVELD: Alberta must limit online gambling advertising .If this were a private charity, donors would walk. If it were a public agency, a minister would be at a microphone by supper.Travel is not the main event, but it tells you how an organization treats rules.KPMG reviewed selected travel transactions and corporate travel bookings totalling $800,073 and flagged $316,118 as ineligible or questionable — roughly 39%. .The audit includes travel costs incurred by a vice-chief during an unpaid leave and trips where auditors could not determine the purpose or where costs may have contravened FSIN policy. That is not a paperwork typo. It is a governance problem.The audit also reviews a November 5, 2020 briefing note recommending a $60,000 increase for the chief and $40,000 increases for vice-chiefs. KPMG found the increase appears to have been implemented with retroactive payments effective April 1, 2020, but the documentation did not clearly state an effective date. If the increase should have started later, KPMG estimates an overpayment of $146,667. .DUR: Inside Alberta’s abortion blackout — the law that makes truth a crime .At minimum, FSIN leadership owed its members and taxpayers clarity. Instead, auditors got ambiguity.Beyond COVID-19 and travel, the audit reads like a checklist of what not to do.KPMG identified 22 vehicle purchases and flagged $427,966 as ineligible or questionable, including spending where auditors say they were not provided mileage records to verify usage. The audit also notes vehicles sold to staff or executives and accounting losses on disposal. .KPMG calculated potential overpayments of $246,524 to a former employee. This amount includes a severance payment that appears inappropriate because the individual was re-employed within one week. Additionally, there were payments for contracting work through a personal company that aligned with the employee’s duties.In the procurement review, a total of $1,561,668 was examined, with $301,625 flagged for issues. Among the concerns, nine vendors were identified as using the same invoice template, where the deliverable is unknown. Additionally, 49 samples amounting to $492,332 were noted for lacking appropriate approval. While these samples are not counted in eligibility, they were highlighted for further attention.KPMG flagged $7,925,783 in administration fees on $10,946,593 reviewed. Of this amount, more than $5.2 million was directed to executive offices, and about $2.3 million was allocated to capital items such as vehicles and the building, despite FSIN’s own policy that lists office rent and renovations as excluded. .FLETCHER: There’s a political crisis in BC (no, not the Conservatives).A new office building project was flagged by KPMG, highlighting that FSIN charged itself rent based on market rates rather than net costs. This resulted in a calculation of $482,796 in basic rent that was charged in excess of the actual net building costs. Additionally, KPMG raised concerns about occupancy costs being collected while the actual occupancy costs were being covered by overhead funded through administration fees, which presents a double-dip risk. The review encompassed $1,280,000 in total, with $962,797 specifically flagged for these issues. Internal charges amounting to $410,794 were flagged on $630,360 reviewed, with discrepancies including photocopy charges that exceeded actual costs and fleet usage charges that were also above actual costs. “Questionable” is not a slur. It is a warning label.FSIN has pushed back publicly, arguing the summary uses cautious wording like “appears” and “may,” and claiming it was given only 10 business days to answer hundreds of KPMG requests. Fine. Then release the backup. Post the invoices. Publish the contracts. .Show the flow-through reports that prove PPE and supports reached communities.Because here is the bottom line: no one is attacking indigenous people by demanding receipts. The people most harmed by sloppy controls are the very communities this organization claims to serve and every Canadian who pays the bill.Ottawa should not shrug and move on. .BARCLAY: The Liberal attack on democracy in Canada.Neither should FSIN’s member chiefs. Make future funding conditional on transparent reporting, public disclosure of major contracts, and enforceable consequences when money cannot be traced.Accountability is not optional. It is the whole deal.
