Some Natives still confused over self-government

Page 5

Yet another Indian self-government conference was held in Lethbridge this week and although it was attended by big names such as Bruce Rawson, the deputy minister of Indian Affairs and Keith Penner, of Penner Report fame, many Native people continue to express confusion and concern over exactly what the government means by Indian self-government.

Currently the only example of Indian self-government in Canada is the Sechelt Band in British Columbia whose government package is scheduled to receive third reading within the next few weeks.

The Sechelt package is modeled on a municipal style government seen in most major cities. However, critics point out that these powers are limited and ultimately fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces government, which in turn falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

But do Indian people want a "third level of government?" A type of government which has limited powers and could, at any time, be tampered with or even abolished without any input from the people involved?

This question has been debated at length by many Native leaders who seem to agree that Indian self-government would be a step forward but yet are unable to actually define an alternative to the municipal package.

A democratically elected government which served an estimated seven million people for nearly 100 years was quietly abolished last week after it spoke against the central government's track record on unemployment and government cutbacks.

The municipal style Greater London Council (GLC) headed by Ken (Red Ken) Livingstone was elected in 1981. Shortly after the election the council which was dominated by the left-wing Labour party, began to arouse the wrath of the national right-wing Conservative party government led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

The offices of the GLC are directly opposite the Houses of Parliament on the Thames River. Each month the GLC gleefully posted London's employment figures in giant letters, putting the issue continuously under the nose of a seemingly forgetful Parliament across the waters.

Then the GLC really riled the Thatcher government, a government which supports the U.S. arms buildup in Europe, by funding left-wing ethnic and minority groups such as the Peace groups named "Babies Against the Bomb."

Other controversial acts included declaring London a nuclear-free zone, twinning it with Managua, the capital of leftist Nicaragua, and publishing a booklet called "Funding a Caring Society."

When Thatcher entertained the South African Prime Minister, the GLC renamed a street Mandela Street in honor the Black South African political prisoner, Nelson Mandela. Thatcher was forced to hold the meeting at her country estate because the streets of London were awash with about 20,000 angry demonstrators, including several GLC members.

So, after almost five years of strong opposition, Thatcher, who has a large majority in the British Parliament, abolished the GLC along with six other left-wing councils in other parts of Britain.

The national government stated the GLC was "inefficient, undemocratic and too costly." However, Thatcher quickly passed GLC powers on to about 80 smaller groups, many of which are unelected or are central government departments.

So the accusations remains that Thatcher wanted the councils abolished purely on political grounds and London becomes the only west European capital not governed by a central authority.

Indian Affairs Minister David Crombie has consistently stated that no Indian band will have self-government thrust upon them. However, the government's intentions became blatantly obvious with the closure last week of department district offices in Lethbridge, St. Paul, Fort McMurray and Fort Vermilion. These offices have been down-graded to sub-offices in an effort to "help Indian bands toward self-government," said Lethbridge District Superintendent Andy Morgan.

So it appears that, ready or not, Indian people will hav self-government thrust upon them and if that self-government is based on the municipal blueprint, Indian people may face the dilemma of toeing the federal/provincial party line or abolition of all their powers, presumably for so-called "democratic reasons."