Hearing probe DIA dismissal

Page 1

CALGARY - A public hearing called over an appeal by an Indian affairs employee who was fired after talking to the media earlier this year turned into a heated and bitter trial of government policy.

The three-day hearing held in Calgary October 7, 8 and 9 was called by Robert Laboucane, who is seeking reinstatement to his $40,000 a year position as district superintendent for employment and economic development in southern Alberta.

Laboucane was fired last February after he held a news conference and bitterly attacked government policy and the Department of Indian Affairs.

Laboucane's February statement was republished in Windspeaker's October 3 edition.

During the hearing, Laboucane produced several witnesses who supported his assertion that the department is breaching its trust responsibility to Indian people.

Chief Frank Kaquitts, chief of the Chiniki band, one of the three Stoney bands whose reserve is west of Calgary, testified that Laboucane was the only Indian Affairs worker he trusted, and urged Adjudicator J. Maurice Cantin, vice-chairman of the Public Staff Relations Board, to reinstate Laboucane.

Kaquitts pointed out that he had inherited a $2 million deficit when he became chief two years ago and since then little progress has been made in reducing the debt.

He added that the department has made no effort to assist the bank with a refinancing structure.

Kaquitts added that despite being chief, he has been unable to access the tribe's general ledger.

Laboucane's former supervisor, John McIsaac, acting director of economic and employment development for the Alberta region, told the hearing that he had given Laboucane permission to speak to a reporter about positive economic development in southern Alberta but that Laboucane "went well beyond the instructions I gave him."

McIsaac said he felt "shocked and betrayed" by the stinging attack Laboucane had levelled against department policy.

Laboucane then took the stand and for more than a day recounted the incidents which led to his angry attack on the department in the media and the subsequent press conference which led to his dismissal.

He criticized Ottawa's policy of Indian self-government which promotes self-sufficiency of bands but yet does not provide bands with the resources for training and management of their resources.

Using budget figures, Laboucane pointed out that economic development monies actually deceased nationally this year by $24 million at the same time Ottawa was encouraging bands to take control of their own affairs.

"But there is no seed money," he said, adding that the department doesn't even inform bands of how much money they will be allocated each year.

"It seems to me to be futile to make plans without knowing what your income will be," he added.

Laboucane then told the court of the many frustrations he had to deal with while he was supervisor in the southern region.

He pointed out that during the winter of 1985 he had worked with several southern bands co-ordinating economic plans and earmarking monies for certain projects.

He spent many hours working with the chiefs and councils and when the Peigan band had run into financial difficulties during Christmas time, he had helped out there personally. He personally had gone to each councillor's home to get signatures for BCRs and other paperwork.

However, early in the new year a rumor of a freeze began to circulate and Laboucane, who had contacted the regional office in Edmonton, said he was assured by McIsaac that the freeze would not affect any of his projects in the south.

But despite the assurances, Laboucane testified, the freeze was put into effect and all the projects he had been working on fell through.

"If I was upset before, I was frantic now," said Laboucane. "I could see myself explaining this to the bands and there is just no way!" said Laboucane emotionally.

"I did speak to the Sunchild chief on the phone because I was afraid to go told me never ver to return to that reserve."

Laboucane added that the impact of the freeze was felt by many Native people as some of his budget was earmarked for Blood and Peigan students attending Lethbridge Community College.

"I spoke to the college and they said they would provide no more services for Natives in this area. I was frantic, I didn't know what to do," said Laboucane.

Laboucane testified that about this time, several news stories appeared in the Calgary Herald about the financial difficulties of the Stoney Band. A Herald reporter requested an interview and he answered the reporter's questions. He added that he

had not been misquoted and that the newspaper report was correct.

However, Laboucane defended his actions by producing several newspaper clippings quoting other department officials making similar statements. However, Adjudicator Cantin said the clippings might be construed as heresay, and therefore

not permissible as evidence.

Cantin then questioned Laboucane and asked him if he would speak to the press again if her were reinstated.

"In hindsight, I think I may have done it differently," said Laboucane, adding that he thought he could work within the department despite the publicity.

Cantin asked if he considered what he did when talking to the media was wrong, and Laboucane replied that he thought he was acting in the best interests of the depart-ment by making these statements to the press as the department could be sued for breach of trust by the bands.

Laboucane added that since his dismissal in February, his house had been repossessed and he is crippled by a $12,000 debt to the bank. He has been forced to sell his car, his daughters must pay their own way through university and he is still jobless, forced to survive in UIC.

Cantin asked Laboucane if he would act differently if he were reinstated and the same kind of problems arose again.

"In reflection, I would look for an alternative rather than going to the press. I think that maybe as ohers have suggested to me, there would have been another way internally. I think it's somebody else's turn to carry the ball."

The hearing was then adjourned until November 18 when representatives for both sides will make final arguments. Adjudicator Cantin then has three months to make his written judgment.