OTTAWA REPORT

Page 2

"I hire them, I fire them.." That's the way one Manitoba Indian chief describes the state of labour relations on his reserve.

You may remember the story. The chief fired a band employee two months ago for refusing to take part in a demonstration against the Department of Indian Affairs. The staff had been warned in writing that they would be fired if they didn't attend the three-day protest, the chief said. The 12 people on staff were office workers or health care workers and the chief said, by way of explanation, that they were hired to serve the band.

In any event, the chief had plenty of reason to be upset with the government. Two months ago the department admitted it had shortchanged Indians in the province by several million dollars. The problem now, though, is that the department says it's not going to give the bands any more money.

That, I think, would drive anybody crazy. It's like a judge telling a robbery victim, "Yes, the pickpocket in court is guilty of the crime and even though the thief still has your money, you can't get it back." No wonder the Indians in Manitoba are mad!

Of course, not all of the chiefs involved in the demonstrations threatened to fire their employees to get them to carry a picket sign. I hate to think about some of the things a chief could force band employees to do to keep their job. For that matter, why stop at band employees? Couldn't ordinary band members be threatened with having their welfare cut off if they don't follow the chief's orders?

This whole episode has got me thinking. Can a chief really fire a band employee for something like that? Just what can a chief do or not do?

After thinking it over, I realized that when it comes to the subject of the powers and authority of an Indian chief, I don't have much in the way of first-hand information.. That's because I am not a chief, I have never been a chief and it's extremely unlikely that I will ever be a chief. In fact, the closest I ever get is that every once in a while some white guy in a supermarket takes one look at me and says," How's it going, chief?"

Most of the time I ignore the remark. After all, a stupid and patronizing comment from an ignorant stranger is certainly not enough to get me thinking about buying a three-piece suit and a leather briefcase.

I mean, who really wants to be a chief nowadays anyway? There's too much work, too much criticism and not much reward. Besides that, the powers of a chief are not what they used to be. In the old days, they varied greatly from tribe to tribe. In some places, as I understand it, the chief was an absolute ruler. He could start a war almost by snapping his fingers. In other places, though, the chief couldn't start a fight with the tribal bully.

For better or worse, though, that's mostly ancient history now, because Indian chiefs are now in a much different situation. Their powers, as defined in the Indian Act, are barely mentioned. The department says it's up to the band to decide just what the chief can do.

On the other hand, Indian leaders place an almost sacred aura on the mantle of chieftainship. The Assembly of First Nations won't talk about the Manitoba controversy, though, because it's not about to criticize one of the chiefs. But if it did speak out, the AFN would probably say that it is an internal matter and no one else's business. The AFN might even add that under self-government, bands have the right to adopt whatever system of government those choose.

I admit the matter of the Manitoba band is a local one. But it's also true that Ottawa will insist that the power of chief and council be defined as part of any future deal on self-government. Indian leaders have certainly spent a lot of time in recent years talking about the powers of Indian government. Maybe it's time, however, for Indian people to start talking about the powers of Indian leaders.

Indian people do have the right to select any type of government they want. But I don't believe or a minute that Indian people would willingly adopt a system that allowed their chief to be king, ayatollah, generalissimo, pope, prime minister and president all rolled into one.

In fact, the fuzzy issue of a chief's powers has got me thinking ahead to the next time I'm in the supermarket and some guy calls me "chief." Until the day Indian people decide just what their chiefs can and can't do, I'll just look that stranger straight in the eye and say? "You're fired."