Transcript of Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review Public Hearing, June 01,
1992 

Commission Members Present

Jacques Johnson                             
Jennifer Klimek                             
Michael Asch                                
Sandy Day                                   
Menno Wiebe                                 
Don Aitken                                  
John MacMillan
Regena Crowchild

Commission Members Absent

Wilfred Barranoik                           
Normand Boucher                             
Theresa McBean                              

Lubicon Representatives Present

Chief Bernard Ominayak
Community Members John Simon Auger and Walter Whitehead
Elders Edward Laboucan, Josephine Laboucan, Bella Ominayak and George Ominayak
Advisors Fred Lennarson and Bob Sachs



Father Jacques Johnson:  This is a meeting of the Lubicon Settlement
Commission of
Review.  We are an independent and non-partisan group who are self-sustaining.

That is we pay our own expenses.  Nobody's supporting us.  We want to be
involved
in this way because we would like to see the negotiations that have been
stalled
for some time between the Lubicons and the two levels of government to move
again. 
Our mandate or terms of reference are to investigate, compare, assess and
report
on the presentation of the Lubicon's and of the two levels of government, and
to
report to the three parties but also to the public.  That is why this
afternoon I
would like especially to welcome the Lubicons who have accepted to appear
before
the Commission and I hope that the two levels of government will also deign to
appear before this Commission as well.  They have been invited on two
occasions
and so far we have received nothing firm in terms of their commitment to
appear
before this Commission.  I would like also as co-Chair to welcome the public
and
the media that are here today.  Your participation is very important and we're
very happy to see you here today.  The thrust of this Commission to a large
extent
is to inform the public of the situation that is going on in these
negotiations
between the Lubicons and the governments, in order to bring out some truth and
to
help people to maybe become more flexible on all levels and to move forward to
solve this crisis which I think is an affliction for our country.

In beginning the Commission would like for us to pray.  I thought of maybe
asking
if there would be one of the Lubicons who would like to lead us in prayer this
afternoon.

Edward Laboucan:  (In Cree)

Jacques Johnson:  Before we ask for an opening statement from the Lubicons I
would
like to introduce the Commission and perhaps we'll just pass the mike around
and
have each member introduce themselves.

I'm Jacques Johnson from Edmonton.  I'm an Oblate Priest and I've been asked
to
co-chair this Commission along with Jennifer Klimek.

Jennifer Klimek:  Hi.  I'm Jennifer Klimek and I'm a lawyer from the City of
Edmonton.

Menno Wiebe:  My name is Menno Wiebe.  I'm with the Mennonite Central
Committee
representing here the Aboriginal Rights Coalition of eight of the major
churches
in Canada.

Sandy Day:  Sandy Day.  I'm from High River.  I run a small environmental
business
and have been active in the environment.

John MacMillan:  I'm John MacMillan from Peace River.  At the present time
just
retired.

Regena Crowchild:  My name is Regena Crowchild.  I'm the President of the
Indian
Association of Alberta.

Michael Asch:  My name is Michael Asch.  I'm a professor of Anthropology at
the
University of Alberta.

Don Aitken:  My name is Don Aitken.  I'm the President of the Alberta
Federation
of Labour.

Jacques Johnson:  Missing on our Commission today is Wilf Barranoik from
Sherwood
Park.  He's a former President of the Chamber of Commerce of Edmonton. 
There's
also Norm Boucher who is a forestry person from Peace River.  Theresa McBean
who
is a engineer from Calgary.  And a co-chair for the environment is Colleen
McCrory
of New Denver, B.C.

In proceeding here today I would like to ask each person taking the mike to
identify him or herself because we are recording the proceedings which will be
transcribed and so we would like, it would be easier for the person doing the
transcribing to be able to identify who is intervening at which time.

I'm very pleased to now invite the Chief of the Lubicons, Bernard Ominayak, to
make an opening statement if he wishes.

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess I will start by introducing the people that I'm
with
today.  On my right is Fred Lennarson who's been an advisor to the Lubicon
Nation
for quite some time.  On my left I've got Bob Sachs who's represented our
people
in a number of incidents.  Also he's been involved with the so-called
negotiations
over the last while.  Also I've got some of the Elders with me today.  I've
got my
father George and also my mother Bella.  They're just directly behind me.  And
also Edward Laboucan and his wife Josephine.  Also John Auger and Walter
Whitehead.  I guess my Dad and Edward both sit on the Elders Council along
with
the Chief and Council.  Walter is a Councillor and John is a member of the
Lubicon
Lake Nation.  

With that I guess I would start off by saying that I welcome the opportunity
for
us to be before this Commission and also the whole idea of the Commission as
it is
set up with the broad representation that is on the Commission.  Also I would
like
to reiterate the position, or the statement made by Father Johnson that I
think
we've finally been able to open this process to the public that may be
interested
as to what is happening between the three parties.  I know we've heard a lot
of
different stories depending on who you talk to.  I think with this kind of a
Commission hopefully we're able to bring out the positions of all the three
parties involved and also this allows for the public to see and hear for
themselves as to what the positions are and the reasoning for the lack of
progress
or the lack of a fair and just settlement for our people.  I think I can
safely
and honestly state to the Commission that we've made every effort on our part
to
try and bring a final and a fair resolution to this problem that has gone on
for
far too long and has gone on for absolutely no reason.  I think with the
interest
and also the participation of the many different people on this Commission we
hope
that there is an understanding as to why the Lubicon people would like to get
a
settlement that's going to enable our people to start building a future.

With that I guess I will stop there.  Hopefully -- the only other thing that I
would like to add at this point is I hope that both levels of government will
be
equally anxious to participate in this Commission because I think we need all
the
help we can get from anybody whether it be the Commission or anybody that's
interested in seeing a fair and just settlement of the Lubicon problem.  I
think
this is a perfect opportunity for both levels of government to get directly
involved and I'm sure that they can use the help just as much as we need the
help
in bringing this matter to a head.  At the same time, I know there is some
concern
on the part of the federal government with the Commission and I, just thinking
back a bit, I've seen statements made by the Minister of Indian Affairs Mr.
Siddon
where he stated that things were going along fine and that he hoped that there
would be a settlement of some kind of an agreement by the end of June.  Well,
I
hope that Mr. Siddon is aware of things I'm not, and I hope that this June,
this
year sometime, we'll get a settlement.  I would welcome his concern and also
his
statement in that he states that he hopes that there will be some kind of an
agreement.  I hope -- it is my understanding that they've got a long ways to
go
before we arrive at that.  But I'm sure as a Minister he can bypass a lot of
the
strings or all the stumbling blocks that have been put in front of us.  I hope
that he pushes those stumbling blocks aside and we do arrive at a settlement. 
Thank you.

Jacques Johnson:  Thank you Chief Bernard.  I would like to ask you to tell us
--
some of us know you, some of us don't know you all that much, and maybe the
public
don't know also -- who the Lubicons are?  Could you tell us about the
Lubicons? 
Who are you?

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess that's one of the rare questions that I haven't
been
asked very often.  I've been asked a lot of questions but nevertheless to try
and
put it as brief and simple as possible.  For myself, I'm not the issue of this
Commission, but to answer your question I'm just a poor bush Indian from
northern
Alberta.  I think I can say that for the rest of us.  We've seen a lot and
we've
been under a whole lot of pressure from many different peoples, especially in
the
oil field and also the forestry, the logging companies, and all these things. 
Our
people lived off the land for many, many years.  All of a sudden they found
oil
and we were in the way.  That brought a lot of social problems to our
community. 
But to try and put it as simple as possible -- our people, we've been proud
and I
think we can still state proudly before this Commission that we are Lubicon
people
and we are Indian people, Native people from northern Alberta who have
survived
off that land for many, many years and I'm proud to say that I'm a Lubicon and
I've got nothing to say too much more other than that.  We want to try and put
something in place for our future where we've been deprived of our way of
life. 
But now in order to put our people back, hopefully, on some kind of footing
where
we're able to get back on our own two feet, we're going to have to have
something
that's fair and just and also in line with what a lot of other people have had
in
the past.  As long as governments are allowed to keep doing what they've been
doing for the last 50 years then that isn't going to be possible.  That's not
to
say that we're prepared to give up at this point.  I think, as I stated, I
hope
that with Commission that we're able to bring these concerns out and hopefully
get
people to understand and hopefully governments are dealt with or pressured to
deal
with the kinds of problems that are in place today.

Jacques Johnson:  Could you tell me, Bernard, how many Lubicons are there
presently?

Bernard Ominayak:  The last time we were looking at that -- maybe a month ago
--
we were looking at around 480.  It's always around 500, sometimes a little
more,
sometimes a little less, depending on births and deaths and a lot of this
stuff. 
We've also had a number of attacks on our membership by the federal government
and
that is part of a concern that we have in the overall...

Jacques Johnson:  That would be about how many families roughly?

Bernard Ominayak:  I haven't really looked at it from that angle, but probably
around 60 families, somewhere in that neighborhood.

Jacques Johnson:  Could you tell us where is it that you live precisely?  What
is
your traditional homeland?

Bernard Ominayak:  We live in northern Alberta, probably about 5-6 hours north
from here.  Probably two hours north of Slave Lake.  We're between the town of
Red
Earth and also the town of Peace River.  Our traditional territory is in that
area.  It's probably somewhere around 40-50 miles wide by 100 miles long. 
That's
the traditional area.  That's where we have our traplines and that's where our
people have hunted all these years.

Jacques Johnson:  We've heard or read the figure 4,000 sq. miles.  Is that
what
you mean by 50 by 100 more or less?

Bernard Ominayak:  Yes, approximately.

Jacques Johnson:  Can you explain to us on what basis your claim of some 4,000
sq.
miles of land is part of your aboriginal rights?

Bernard Ominayak:  Our position, and if we were to look at it from the legal
perspective, I guess a lot of you would have heard that back in 1899 that the
treaty commissioners went out into northern Alberta and signed with a lot of
the
various Bands, the Treaty 8.  Through that process we were missed out
altogether. 
What happened basically was that those who signed gave up larger portions of
so-
called traditional territories at that point and there are different versions
of
this depending on who you talk to.  Again, if you talk to the Native people
you
get a different version than the federal government's description of Treaty 8.

But what they basically stated is that they had these traditional territories
and
then they, when they signed the treaty, they gave up those larger portions in
exchange for a smaller portion which they then called reserves, with certain
benefits along with those.  Now, as I say, there're disputes over that by a
lot of
the Native peoples.  We've done research into that too whereby the
misunderstandings between what was written and what was agreed to verbally. 
But
we were completely missed out of that process, so we retain our aboriginal
title
to our traditional lands where we've lived all these years as far back as
people
can remember...well beyond 1899 when the treaties were signed.  We've been
able to
establish that we were there well before the treaties were signed.  But we
were
never a party to Treaty 8.  Even though we're within the Treaty area we were
never
a party to Treaty 8.

Jacques Johnson:  Okay.  I've heard it said personally that the Lubicons or
some
Lubicons came in the area after the Louis Riel rebellion in 1885.  Is there
any
truth to that and did the Cree people from your area, were they established
long
before 1885 do you think?

Bernard Ominayak:  Well Jacques, I'm not an anthropologist or done a lot of
that
research.  But I know of an anthropologist who's done a lot of work in that
area
and who's stated that the Crees have been there for a long, long time.  I
would be
prepared to safely say that we were there long before 1885 or whatever the
date
that you mentioned.  I think we were back into the 16th and 17th century when
we
were going through our genealogy stuff in preparing for the kind of legal
action
that we had hoped to pursue.  I think there's been a lot of anthropology work
and
a lot of research done by people, but not necessarily on behalf of the
aboriginal
peoples.  It was more people on the outside, whether they be with government
or
the multi-national corporations whereby they were trying to establish certain
things with these kinds of research.  We still see that today.  Even in the
so-
called expertise within the oil field where they will rubber stamp some kind
of a
report or some kind of a commission by somebody that's supposed to be an
expert in
a certain field.  There's been a lot of work and great effort put in by
governments in the past -- especially the federal government -- to deplete or
abolish the rights of Aboriginal people to this country.  I think the Indian
Act
is part of it.  They come at us from all angles.  I think if people were to
look
at all of that, I think Michael would probably be a better person to speak on
behalf of the anthropology aspect of this whole thing.  But I will say that we
lived off those lands for I don't know how long.  As far back as we could go,
we
went back and we re-checked a lot of this and we checked with the Elders and
all
the stories and everything that's gone back and also whatever documentation
was
available and we established ourselves to way before the treaty was signed. 
So I
don't know when Louis Riel would have been up there or when Louis Riel was
doing
whatever he was doing.  This is one of the things that we're seeing today too.

For example, if Louis Riel and the people that he was fighting for were behind
him
there then I don't think I would be here fighting this kind of a battle today. 
I
mean, that's a lesson in itself.  That people should stand for what they
believe
in.

Jacques Johnson:  I have one more question regarding your origins and how long
you've been there.  I am told that the Lesser Slave Lake area, which is south
of
where you're living now, was the land of the Slavey Indians and that's why the
Lake got its name.  And that whole area north of there was Slavey and Beaver
Indian.  Were there also, do you think, Cree Indians co-habitating north of
there
at the time with the surrounding Dene people, which the Beaver and the Slavey
people really are to this day?

Bernard Ominayak:  I think there's been a lot of documentation, I guess, to
that
effect.  But there's been a closer look as to what may have happened back in
the
late 1700s and so on.  But we clearly have been there, whether the Slavey were
there or not, I don't know, in my time or in Edward's time.  But we know that
the
Beaver Indians were always on the west side of the Peace River and we were
always
on the eastern side of the Peace.  Now whether they went down to Lesser Slave
Lake, that we don't know, because we were out there and really never really
had
any contact with the other peoples.  But there's been documentation and
reports by
priests when they first started coming in saying that we were up there and
they
were trying to let governments know we were out there and we were never dealt
with.  And that leads us to quite a ways back.  And then there was more
research
done by a gentleman named Jim Smith who has gone back and talked to a lot of
people and gone through all this documentation and basically threw out the
documentation that's been done in the past where he's -- I think, maybe Fred
could
make a comment on that.

Fred Lennarson:  This question has come up in the past as Bernard indicated
and as
you indicated.  We've looked at it for a number of years.  We find in the
archives
of the Missionary Oblates in McLennan baptismal records of people from this
area
in the 1855-57 period where they estimated that Lubicon people from the area
they
were baptising were 100 years old. We know who they are from the genealogies
and
we know who their parents are.  Those are the Lubicons from the area.  With
regard
to the Beaver Indians and the Slavey people, we have consulted with Chief
Harry
Chonkolay, the lifetime Chief of the Dene Tha, who tells us that this was
always
Lubicon territory, that there was a contest between the Beaver and the Cree
but it
took place north and south on the west side of the Peace River, not in the
area
north of Lesser Slave Lake, and also east-west to the north of Peace River. 
We
have an affidavit from Chief Chonkolay to that effect.  We have reviewed the
literature on this question and came across articles by Dr. James Smith from
the
Museum of the American Indian in New York City, the head of the Ethnology
Department there, who had long suspected and had written papers going back to
1975
in which he discussed the common notion that the Cree from the James Bay area
moved west in advance of the fur trade but said that he didn't think this was
supportable and he thought that the Cree were at least as far as the
Alberta/Saskatchewan before the advent of the fur trade in this area.  Lubicon
Elders tell us that at the time of the fur trade, which was the suggestion as
to
when the Cree moved west and supposedly displaced the Beaver, that Cree people
did
move west from the east but they did not go into the Lubicon area.  They were
in
the Lesser Slave Lake area, they were up and down the Peace River, they were
all
around the area.  The Lubicon people knew that these movements were taking
place
but the Lubicons said that they had always been in this area.  The bottom
line, in
a paper written by Dr. Smith a copy of which we can make available to the
Commission, which has been described as the definitive work now on westward
Cree
migration, Dr. Smith places the boundary dividing the Cree and the Beaver at
the
Peace River, the western boundary of the traditional Lubicon territory.  I can
make a copy of that paper available to the Commission.  It was reprinted in
the
American Anthropological Association publication.

Jacques Johnson:  We'd appreciate it if you did...(change tapes)...

Regena Crowchild:  I'd just like to ask a couple of questions.  First of all,
could you in your own words explain your claim to us?

Bernard Ominayak:  That would have to be in Cree.  I don't know how best to
describe the claim.  We never signed a treaty and we retain our aboriginal
title
over our whole traditional territory.  Until we do sign some kind of an
agreement,
then that is going to be the case.  We've tried to negotiate with governments
in
the past and haven't been successful in trying the negotiating route.  In so
far
as the treaty is concerned, even though we're not part of the treaty we're
kind
of, in many ways, held to Treaty 8 in many aspects.  The land quantum and what
was
set aside -- for example, 128 acres per person under Treaty 8.  So we had to
keep
those kind of guidelines in mind as we tried to negotiate an agreement
hopefully
dealing to a degree with our aboriginal rights or title, and not to try and
cede
anything that we don't want to cede and also to understand to a certain degree
that we have to give up certain areas in any kind of an agreement that we may
arrive at.  Now I don't know if I've explained myself to you.

Regena Crowchild:  I guess I was asking for was what are you seeking in the
claim? 
What do you want in the claim, perhaps?

Bernard Ominayak:  As we look at the overall claim we're not asking for
anything
that hasn't been dealt with in the treaty to a large degree.  For example, we
are
hoping that we're able to move back to our original community right at Lubicon
Lake, and in doing so we would have to put in roads, a school, housing, water
and
sewer, and also look at the possibility of some economic development.  We
looked
at a number of areas.  Something that would enable our people to try and make
the
transition from one way of life into another with the understanding that we
have
very limited education amongst our Nation.  So keeping all these things in
mind,
we tried to look at things that may work and hopefully work on the younger
generation to bring them up to par with the rest of the society that's had the
advantage of having the proper schools, the proper teachers and so on which we
haven't been able to have.  Even though we have a school at this point that's
run
by the provincial government it's not exactly in line with the wishes of the
community.  In fact, it contradicts the wishes of the community in many ways.

For example one of the things that we have talked about a lot and have some
experience with now in is raising buffalo to try and deal with the diet of the
people, which has been basically been moose in the past but that's been
depleted
because of the activity that's taken place within our traditional territory. 
So
we looked at buffalo, and hopefully in trying to deal with that aspect we're
able
to bring in some money with part of it and also the local people being able to
use
that particular diet.  Also we were looking at maybe elk, game-ranching I
guess
basically, trying to pursue those kinds of avenues whereby people who aren't
going
to be doctors or lawyers or any of that, and yet they want to retain a
particular
way of life which isn't possible because of what has taken place as a result
of
resource extraction by the multi-national corporations like the oil
development,
and also now with the logging interests that are there.  For example, in the
whole
traditional territory and beyond our traditional territory all the timber
leases
have been given to Daishowa, which is a giant pulp mill which is going to just
totally wipe everything out if we can't stop it.  

So in order to make that transition from one way to another it's going to take
money and that's where we were looking at what is going to be possible.  We
looked
at a lot of things and we talked to a lot of different people -- for example
cow/calf operations.  We've looked at that and we've talked to different
people
around Athabasca, around Peace River, people who have been in the business and
people who have been successful, we've talked to people who have failed at it
to
try and get an idea as to what it's going to take to try and pursue that kind
of
operation.

We also talked to people around Lubicon Lake itself.  We have natural
saskatoon
berries and we heard that there are some hybrid saskatoons now and that
they're
making money at that.  So we thought if we could get into something like that
where our people are accustomed to that kind of berry and also if the market
for
the berries are there, then we could consume part of it and hopefully be able
to
generate enough so that kind of an operation would be viable in itself.

These are all ideas that we've talked about.  One of the things that we've
really
stressed and we've really been pushing is education, school.  We looked at
trying
to bring the school up from say K to maybe grade 10 or 11 or 12, as high as we
could, depending on how we do with negotiations.  We haven't done very well in
that area.  But the wishes of the people are that we'd like to bring that as
high
as possible because the higher we go the older the children become.  At this
point
they go to grade 8 and have to leave when they're 13 or 14 and get into a
different school and they're dropped back a couple of grades automatically
because
the quality of education isn't quite up to par with the rest of the school
system. 
So that is a problem that we saw and wanted to pursue -- the education aspect
of
it.  But in trying to put the school and education as a priority, we ran into
a
number of difficulties where we also knew that a lot of our people don't have
very
much education and we have to try and get them educated to a degree to be able
to
do the things we want to do -- like if we were to get into ranching, we'd have
to
get into some agricultural things.  Like for example, if we have cattle then
we're
going to need grain and if we're going to have grain then we're going to have
to
have machinery and everything is getting modern and our people don't read or
write.  So we  have to try and educate people who may be able to run certain
machinery, but to also be able to repair them to a degree.  So we were looking
at
a vocational centre tied in with the school.  But then you have the different
areas, for example, a mechanic, a carpenter, a vet if we're looking at animals
--
all these different things that we would have to look at.  In our community at
this particular point in time our kids don't have anything to look forward to,
nothing to go to school for, there's no goals out there.  They don't want to
leave
the community and they're stuck.  There's nothing in the bush for them any
more. 
Our Elders have a lot of valuable knowledge as to how to survive off the land
but
when you destroy the land that knowledge isn't viable any more.  So that's why
we
have the kind of gap between the younger generation and the older generation
because we're not able to utilize and tap onto that resource and that
knowledge
that's there.

So considering all these things, we had to try and put something together that
we
would hope would enable our people to...become a vet or a mechanic or all
these
different things.  But what we would have liked to have done is put all these
together within the school to enable our people to start taking, or having at
least an opportunity to try and educate themselves in that area.  I can go on,
but
I think that's roughly the kinds of things that we are looking at.

Michael Asch:  Bernard, thank you for coming.  I know that it's just one more
thing.  We've all read the different proposals and for people who don't know
we
have both your proposal and various government proposals and we've looked at
them. 
Each of us has done some thinking about what the difference is between the two
and
where the disagreements might be between the two.  You've just told us
something
about what you want to see for your people, and I think that might be a place
for
me to start to ask you, where do you see the difference between your proposal
and
what we have seen in the various federal proposals about being able to do
this?

Bernard Ominayak:  Thank you for the welcome, Michael.  I've never personally
been
involved in any of these negotiations.  There's some that took place two or
three
years ago.  Fred Lennarson's been directly involved along with Walter
Whitehead. 
In the latest round, Bob Sachs' been directly involved, so maybe I'll ask them
to
speak to or answer your question.

Fred Lennarson:  I think you know from having looked at these proposals that
they
are very complicated.  We can assess them item by item and I encourage you to
do
so.  But for a first cut at this thing, let me suggest my analysis and the
analysis of everybody that I've talked to about these things have concluded
that
what the Lubicon proposal intends to do is to try and rebuild the economy and
enable the Lubicon people to be once again socially, politically and
economically
self-sufficient.  That is their objective.  It's an integrated plan for
accomplishing that objective.  I think that all of the pieces really need to
be
thought about in that context and thought about in relationship to all of the
other pieces, because you really can't understand what the Lubicons are
seeking to
do with their proposals unless you understand that they are not just after a
store.  They are after a store as part of rebuilding their economy so that
their
own people can spend their money in their own community and don't have to go
65
miles away to a non-Native community to spend their money, so they have the
jobs
and build the economy and so on.

The government proposals, I think, can be fairly characterized as proposals
which
would essentially maintain the Lubicon people in a position of continuing
welfare
dependence.  The things that are firmest in the government proposals are
things
like roads, water, sewer and houses.  The things that are soft or missing are
things like a community hall, an old peoples' homes, a community rec centre --
the
things that are essential for the Lubicon people to manage their community, to
manage their society, politically, culturally.  The things that are missing
altogether are the proposed economic development activities.  I do not think
that
it's possible to put together a proposal that achieves this objective without
deliberation.  This is a proposal which, in my judgement and in the judgement
of
every other person I know who's looked at it closely, would be tantamount to
building a zoo for the Lubicons, a new zoo, and then feeding the Lubicons at
an
appointed time on welfare.  

I think that this is the difference.  The Lubicons are seeking to once again
become socially, politically, economically self-sufficient after having their
traditional lands and economy and way of life destroyed.  And what the
government
is seeking to do with their proposals is to maintain the Lubicons in a
position of
continuing welfare dependency.

Now why this should be so one would have to speculate.  But analytically there
is
absolutely no question that the Lubicon proposals are intended to accomplish
self-
sufficiency and the government proposals would never accomplish that self-
sufficiency.  They would unavoidably result in continuing welfare dependency.

Michael Asch:  What are the factors in the government proposal that are
missing? 
Is it mostly dollar issues?  Is it the way in which the dollars are tied up in
what can be done?  What are the parameters of what's missing?

Fred Lennarson:  There are some people who argue that it is possible to reduce
much of this to dollars.  That is not my perspective and it certainly isn't
the
perspective of the Lubicon people who for at least the last 10-12 years have
been
working to try and develop these proposals.  Every single element in this
thing
has a function.  That's what I meant earlier when I was talking about this is
an
integrated package.  The vocational training centre which has a dollar value
of
something like $3 million in 1988 dollars is equally important in the function
that it is intended to perform as the compensation investment fund of $100
million.  Now there're different numbers involved.  But what the Lubicons are
looking for with this community improvement shop/vocational training center is
to
use the whole development exercise and development activity in their area as
an
opportunity for their people to gain skills and knowledge that are relevant to
the
changed world in which they find themselves.  They want, while they're
building
houses, to teach their people building trades skills.  While they're
developing
agricultural lands, to teach their people skills in maintaining farming
equipment. 
While they're building roads to teach their people heavy equipment operation
and
maintenance.  So this is a terribly important function in their developmental
thinking. 

And I might make just a follow-up statement to Bernard's comments about the
importance of education.  The Lubicon people see the whole community as a
school
for their children.  Or in other words, they propose that the kids taking
biology
class and interested in veterinary science would take classes actually in the
large animal veterinary clinic they propose to build to help to take care of
their
cow/calf operation.  They propose kids who are interested in auto mechanics
and
things mechanical would work in the community shop actually working on farming
and
community improvement equipment.  

Equally important but different is the investment fund -- the purpose of which
is
to generate interest revenues in perpetuity for the Lubicon people.  If that
$100
million generates after inflation the same kind of interest revenues as the
Heritage Trust Fund or a similar fund in Alaska, we're looking at something
like 4
1/2% a year return.  The Lubicons are looking at, therefore, as an objective,
as
part of their integrated package here to try and have a fund which will
generate
about $4 1/2 million a year independent revenues for which they are dependent
upon
nobody.  That's an important function.  The vocational training center is an
important function.  The community recreation center is something that they
seek
because they're having a hell of a time with their kids in a world where the
traditional way of life is gone, the things the kids used to do no longer
exist,
everybody's at loose ends about what they're going to do, and they'd like to
have
a place where the kids can go and they can work with them on things like
hockey
rather than have them out sniffing gasoline or drinking and having head-on
collisions with oil company trucks, which is the kind of problem the Lubicon
people have been facing as their economy has been systematically destroyed by
this
development activity.

I don't know if that answers your question but it is my perspective that every
single element in here has a carefully calculated purpose and they all have
value
independent of the money.  It's not just a money question to me.

Michael Asch:  I understand that.  And I guess just to say that what I hear
you
say is that these are the elements that are missing from the federal package. 
These are the kinds of elements that are missing from the federal package.

Fred Lennarson:  There's been a little bit of an evolution, Michael, but I
maybe
could use the commercial element as an example.  The Lubicons have basically
four
proposals for commercial activity in their community.  One is a general store
to
which I referred a moment ago.  This would be a place where people could go to
shop and where people working in the area could go to shop as well.  Currently
you
have to go to Peace River 65 miles away for any kind of serious shopping.  So
they
want that as an economic development activity.  They want it as a place where
people can spend their own money in their own community.  They want it for
jobs.

Secondly they want to have an 8-unit motel and coin laundry.  Same reasons. 
There's no place to stay in Little Buffalo Lake during the period of this
proposed
development activity.  There are people in that area in the development
business
all the time looking for places to stay.  So there's an opportunity for a
little
business there.  And the Lubicon people need a place for people to stay in
their
community or you have to go again 65 miles to Peace River. 

The third commercial proposal is a gravel crushing operation.  They have
gravel
deposits on the proposed reserve land.  They need the gravel for road-building
and
for their community construction program.  And if they don't develop that
resource
themselves they have to go outside and purchase it.

And lastly they have a proposal for a concrete batch plant to make concrete,
also
needed for the construction program, and also providing something for which
there's a market in the area.  

Now they've developed this with people who run gravel pits.  They've developed
this with people who run stores and make concrete in northern Alberta.  The
total
tab of these commercial activities is $4 million in 1988 dollars.  I would
refer
you to the federal government's offer in this regard, so-called offer.  I'll
pull
my copy and just read it verbatim because it so dramatically illustrates in my
mind the differences.  The government's proposal for these four items which
have a
total tab of $4 million -- the government's original proposal and I'll mention
where this thing has gone -- but the original proposal is, "The Department of
Industry, Science and Technology will seek Ministerial approval in principle
for
funding from the Native Economic Development Program up to a maximum of $4
million
for the following projects provided they meet normal program requirements." 
Now
what that means for these commercial projects is the Lubicons can apply to
normal
government programs and services and if they are successful, maybe they'll get
money, maybe they won't get any money...A year later or so they talked about
providing the interest on a $10 million fund and a little later they talked
about
some kind of per capita calculation.  But the bottom line in the most recent
proposals tabled by the government are letters from government bureaucrats
assuring the Lubicons that if they apply for normal government grants and
qualify
they will be considered.  

I will illustrate it with one other thing.  The Lubicons submitted pages and
pages
-- I don't know how many in total it was because it was in a number of
different
files -- but 50-60 pages of proposals on their agricultural proposals -- all
of
which are summarized in one form or another in the Lubicon draft settlement
agreement, a copy of which you have.  How many cattle they'd buy a year, how
much
land they would develop for forage crops, how much equipment they had to have
--
all of this carefully calculated working with people who run large cow/calf
operations and people who sell the equipment and the fertilizer and everything
you
can think of. The government's reaction to that -- which has undergone some
minor
revisions now...was:  "Canada proposes to develop jointly with the Band a
phased
planned for an agricultural venture.  Federal members of the joint plan will
come
from Indian Affairs, the Native Economic Development Program, Canada
Employment
and Immigration Commission, Agriculture Canada and the Western Diversification
Fund.  Aspects that the joint team will examine are the potential development
of a
cow/calf operation; the clearing of land -- they're going to examine the
potential
of that, the possibility of that; the definition of suitable crops -- which
the
Lubicons have worked years to define with qualified people; productive
capacity of
the Band -- by which they mean whether the Band can actually do the things the
Band is proposing to do; and then environmental impacts...This was the
government's proposal to settle Lubicon land rights in this area.  

Now the economic area's the most blatant.  When you go to things like the Band
Office, the Community Hall, the Community Rec Centre and things I mentioned
before, those are all really soft as well.

Michael Asch:  Thank you...(change tapes)...other things but maybe we can come
back to this.  On a different topic, Don Aitken said that he would be prepared
to
go next so I'll pass it down to him.

Don Aitken:  Thank you, Michael.  First of all, Bernard, I'd like to thank you
for
coming and I'd like to thank the Elders and other members of the Lubicon Lake
Nation for coming here.  We know it isn't easy.  We're not just down the
street
from you.  I'm sure sometimes you're quite thankful of that.  You had
mentioned a
number of really important issues today.  One of the first ones that you
mentioned
I'd just like to address.  When you were asked about who are the Lubicons you
talked about being a poor bush Indian from northern Alberta and then talked
about
when oil was found and the Lubicons were in the way.  In spite of that for
many
years you've survived on the land.  One of the issues that I read in the
proposals
from your side has to deal with the land and the natural resources, the
surface
and the sub-surface rights, the mineral rights.  I think you've made it quite
clear that in fact there's been a loss of hunting and trapping opportunities
and
certainly economic loss as a result of not having control of those mineral
rights. 
I wonder if in fact you could give us some idea as to what you see then as a
loss? 
What that loss has been?  Just in the time since you've started to put this
argument forward?  I'm sure that the argument initially was substantial.  How
much
has it increased since then?  How we can have an opportunity to understand
what
has been lost almost on a daily basis and how the longer that no agreement is
there the more loss there is and the more reason for an urgent settlement of
this
dispute?

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess I can't do much further than what I said.  I think
that
a lot of this stuff goes hand in hand.  We've been raised in a particular way
where everything is dependent upon one another.  For example, when you have
people
like the Lubicons, they are always looking and checking and preserving as we
went
on through the hunting and trapping that we were accustomed to.  For example,
there are certain areas that are better than other areas so you're dependent
on
those at different times of the year and also, all the people can't go into
one
area at any given point because then you have overkill.  So you've got to try
and
preserve the wildlife as you go along.  

The same thing applies with anything that we've done.  Everybody always had a
role
to play in all of this.  The women had a role.  The children had a role.  The
Elders had a role.  And the men all had roles.  So in what we were accustomed
to
we were looking at some kind of a settlement that would keep those things in
hand. 
For example, when I talked about the school and also the vocational centre and
what may be possible through that field.  

Another example would be the way our leadership is set up.  We've got the
Chief
and we've also got the Council which is in line with everybody else.  There's
certain things we can't change even though we'd like to change at times.  But
with
the Chief and Council we've got the Elders' Council who have full
participation as
to what has to be dealt with in so far as the community and the outside is
concerned.  And with that we were looking at the family ties from the
different
family groupings that these people represent to try and keep that connection
in
place.  

But we run into the different problems as I pointed out earlier where you have
Elders who are here with unlimited knowledge as to how to survive off the
land. 
But then that knowledge we can't utilize.  For example, a lot of our kids who
are
15, 16, 17, 18, they don't have enough knowledge to survive in the bush, and
they
don't have enough education to survive on the outside, and they don't have any
interest to be on the outside.  So we're caught in a cycle where we can't
really
do anything.  They're limited as far as work is concerned.  We can't utilize
the
knowledge that is there because of the destruction that has taken place within
our
traditional territory.  The wildlife's gone as there's more oil development
and
there's less and less and less of the forest.  Especially if Daishowa is
allowed
to start its logging operations within our traditional territory.  That's just
going to finish everything off.  

For example, again, we've asked a lot of questions as to what is going to
happen,
because we know it's going to take certain things to prevent certain things. 
We
know that, for example, if the poison gets into the food chain of the wildlife
it's going to come back to haunt us, at which point we don't know.  We ask
these
questions.  For example, all the pollution in the air gets into the leaves,
then
the moose eat the leaves, does it get into their system that way?  Then we in
turn
eat the moose.  Or if it gets into the fish through the water, then those fish
go
up and down the streams into our area.  It gets into the fish, does it get
into
the bear?  And if it gets into the bear, how far up that food chain does it
go? 
Our people are dependent on this wildlife.  Does it get into the beaver once
it
gets into these streams?  These are all serious questions that we've been
asking
and nobody's been able to answer.  

The reason I'm bring all this up is that a lot of these things tie in together
at
some point as to how we survive and also in order to try and keep that tie, we
looked at trying to put a package together from our perspective hoping that
our
people are going to succeed in the different areas that we hope to pursue.  We
haven't really concentrated on maybe it's going to cost too much for the
government to put in this money.  But they're stealing our resource from us 24
hours a day.  For how many years have they extracted billions of dollars off
our
land.  That's outright stealing.  The Getty Government, Getty himself has
stated
time after time that he doesn't want to deal with law-breakers and so on. 
Maybe
that's why we don't have our settlement because who is breaking the law more
so
than the government?  It's the governments who are outright stealing and
there's
absolutely no reason for that.  

For us to be able to build a future after the destruction that has taken place
to
our way of life, and it's not our choice, this is all forced onto us.  If we
had a
choice we would go back to the way we were.  But that isn't possible.  And the
reality is we're going to have to look at something and how best do we put a
package together that's going to enable our people to get on our two feet. 
And
that's the big question, the serious issue that we have to contend with.  And
however we do it -- it hasn't been possible.  We've made every effort to try
and
deal with governments in an honest way, sitting with them.  I've been forcing
my
negotiators in a lot of these cases to stay in there, get everything across to
them.  It's not that they don't understand, they're just so busy looking at
ways
and means to undermine us through this process thus far.  As long as that's
the
case, then I don't know how it's going to be possible to resolve these kinds
of
situations.  When are we going to put life over dollars?  And that's been the
issue.  

I think in trying to deal with people in an honest way, it's always hard to
see
the other side and watch these other guys -- there're there looking at you
straight in the eye and they're telling you flat-out lies.  I've got to deal
with
reality.  The interest on my part is to try and put something in place for my
people that's going to enable my people to start building a future.  But the
other
side is so busy trying to undermine us and shaft us.  These are the kinds of
problems that we face at all times in trying to bring these issues out to
these
guys.  I hope at some point we're going to be able to start dealing with some
honest people.  But I guess that holds true right across Canada.  I mean, if
we
had judges that were prepared to deal fairly with laws then we wouldn't have a
lot
of the problems within the aboriginal communities of this country.  The list
can
go on and on.  

The other thing I think that's important to understand is a lot of our people
are
dependent, as I pointed out to you, in these different areas like wildlife. 
You
know we have certain areas for water fowl, we have certain areas for fish, we
have
certain areas for fur-bearing animals, and we have certain areas for hunting
like
for moose, deer and all the different animals that we live off for the meat
diet. 
Not all of our traditional area is good for all these things at any given
point. 
There're certain areas good for that and this and that throughout our
traditional
territory.  We go in there today and what do we see -- either a pump jack or a
power line or a major highway that's been put in.  So that's gone.  Then it's
just
been reducing and reducing all that our people have been dependent on.  For
example, the different berries we used to pick, we go there today and there
stands
a pump jack.  In one case there's a big battery station where they've got a
major
camp where they separate the crude from the water and all this.  So that's
there. 
That's gone.  That holds true with our medicine, our herbs and stuff.  A lot
of
them we can't even get within our traditional territory any more.  They're
gone. 
They're just wiping us off like this.  They take one thing today and another
thing
tomorrow.  As time goes, we're boxed into this little area.  Now for us to get
a
lot of this stuff we've got to go way outside to somebody else's territory, if
they allow us to, to start looking.  

When we speak of the kind of destruction that takes place, that's how they're
just
eating away.  And now we're faced with most of the time, 90% of our people on
welfare.  I don't know how anybody can survive under those kinds of figures,
whether it be a white society or a Native society.  That leads to all kinds of
problems.

Fred Lennarson:  I'd like to give you just some sense of this thing from a
little
different perspective.  In the traditional Lubicon society the men would
support
their families and an extended family through their skills as a hunter and
trapper.  With the traditional economy destroyed and dramatically so these
roles
are in serious jeopardy.  The moose is the primary source of food for the
Lubicons.  In 1979 when the road came in there were 219 moose killed for food. 
By
1981 it had dropped to 110.  By 1982 it had dropped to 37.  By 1983 it had
dropped
to 19.  So people say to me, "What's it like?"  I say, what would Edmonton
look
like 10 years after everybody had been forced onto welfare and had to stand in
line with their hand out in order to survive?  What would that do to
relationships
between men and women and parents and children and the old people?  These
people
pride themselves on supporting a family through their skills as a hunter, they
pride themselves on going into the bush with a couple of 30-30 shells and
coming
out and feeding several families with it.  Now, they can't go into the bush
and
feed themselves.  One Lubicon man, a hunter, forced onto welfare in order to
feed
himself and feed his family, started drinking, wife left him, took welfare
herself
-- she had the choice of either leaving or joining him in drinking and you
know
what happens in a family like that -- so the man committed suicide with his
hunting rifle.  It's the first known suicide in Lubicon history.  During one
18
month period there were something like 21 pregnancies, 18 children were still-
born.  The others were born prematurely with all kinds of problems.  There is
not
one single Lubicon here who has not experienced unnatural death in his own
family
through alcohol-related incidents -- a man freezing to death on his trapline,
a
man killing himself with his hunting rifle, still-born children, kids running
head-on into an oil company truck.  They couldn't even identify the bones. 
They
didn't even know which bones went with which child.  This has been rightly
described by the World Council of Churches as genocide.  I don't know if
that's
what you were looking for, but that's the consequence on this society of
what's
been done to them while the Alberta Government and the oil companies and
dominant
Canadian society, all of the rest of us have benefited to the tune of an
estimated
$8 billion in oil revenues, and now they're proposing to go in and chop down
something like 11,000 trees a day, dehydrate them and send them to Japan as
part
of supposed diversification of the Alberta economy. 

That's what we're talking about.  We're talking about a population of people
who a
couple of years ago had a tuberculosis epidemic which affected 1/3 of the
population.  That's the kind of thing that you normally hear about in the
Third
World or a developing country or in a different period of North American
history. 
A public health nurse up there when this occurred said rightly that
tuberculosis
is a disease which people get when they're immune system is down.  That's what
happens when you've got people committing suicide, relatives of Lubicon kids
drinking photocopy fluid plainly marked poison, people drinking too much and
burning themselves alive in their homes, people having too much to drink and
going
to their trapline and freezing to death on the way to their trapline,
premature
born babies, still-born babies, and so on.  And there should be no question
about
what's being done to these people as a result of these actions by both levels
of
Canadian Government.

Don Aitken:  Thank you.  I think what I'm hearing basically is that there
isn't
enough money to buy back all the damage that's been done.  I mean, that's the
bottom line.  You just cannot buy back what has been lost.

Bernard Ominayak:  Mr. Aitken, I don't think there's any amount of dollars
that
would be able to put back in place what we lost by way of our traditional way
of
life but rather we've concentrated on trying to put something together that
would
enable us to build some kind of a future for our people, especially for our
younger generation.  One of the things that we're always very careful about is
to
try and put something together that is going to hopefully benefit the future
generations of our people, because once we make an agreement, then we pretty
well
have to live by that agreement.  Now whether the governments can say the same,
I
don't know at this point.  But from our side, it's something that we have to
look
at very, very closely.

For example, I'll give you another example.  Early on with the traplines a lot
of
our trappers were out there trapping and they had their traps set out.  The
guys
who were in the oil fields would have their cat and go out of their way to
destroy
traps.  A few of the people had tried to get compensation for some of the
damage
that was done to the traplines and so on.  But the whole issue is not the
$5.00
trap or anything.  We were losing a way of life that we were accustomed to. 
That's one of the things that was very important to us.  We were trying to
hang on
and hang on and hang on, and not necessarily concentrating on the $5.00 trap
but
rather to try and preserve what we had.  That wasn't possible because they
kept
coming.  There was no response even to the complaint, to a lot of the
complaints
that were put by the trappers.  On one hand while the trappers were out there
and
we were trying to keep them from shooting the guy running the cat, these were
all
things that we were dealing with very early on, and at the same time to try
and
keep our people from going to jail, because we kept telling them if you kill
this
guy they'll just put more in.  It's not these guys.  They're only out there
doing
a job and there're many of them.  So these were the problems that we've gone
through.  I hope a lot of the people end up understanding that we've been
forced
into a lot of situations.  We've fought a battle and I don't think we were
expected to be able to be here today.  Or even this year.  But we hope that
we're
going to be able to withstand what may come in the future as long as we don't
have
a settlement.  But that's anybody's guess as to how long that's going to be
possible, or if it's going to be possible.  As I stated in my opening remarks,
I
don't think there is a need for this kind of action to be taking place and be
practised by governments or anybody interested in any kind of natural
resource.  I
think we've got to deal with the people as people, regardless of their color. 
I
think there needs to be a greater understanding by the general public of
Alberta
and within Canada and beyond that we can't allow these kinds of practices to
be
practised by governments of the day any longer.

Jacques Johnson:  Thank you Bernard.  We've been sitting almost an hour and a
half.  I propose that we take a 15 minute break.  There's coffee up there for
all
of you.

We will continue for the next hour or so.  By 4:30 we will be looking at our
watch
seriously.  We would like to resume tomorrow morning around 9:30.  Let's say
9:30. 
If we can count on the Lubicons to be back we'd appreciate that very much. 

In continuing this afternoon I will ask the other members of the panel in turn
to
see if they have any questions they would like to raise.

Jennifer Klimek:  Like the other Commissioners I'd like to welcome you all
here
today and to thank you for coming.  My question is with respect to the
proposal. 
I've had an opportunity to review it and it certainly seems very clear and
well
organized.  What I'd like to know is a little bit of the background that went
into
it.  How did you come up with these numbers, not specifically, but some of the
methodology about how you came up with the figures and what needed to be
there?

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess a few years ago, it's a continuing process that we
got
ourselves into, whereby we actually went to people who are in the business. 
For
example, in the area of housing, we've gone to people in Peace River,
different
lumber suppliers, given them an idea of the kind and type of house and what it
would cost to build that kind of a house.  So in compiling all this
information
we've gone out to people who are in the business.  For example, the cow/calf
operation, we've gone to a lot of different farms where they've been in the
cow/calf operation...and what it costs, like how much grain for x number of
head. 
We've gone through this process.  These people have given us figures as to
what it
would cost to run those kinds of businesses on a yearly basis.  So the simple
answer would be we've gone directly to people who are directly involved in the
different areas.  For example, in road construction, we've gone to a number of
different people.  I think one of your Commissioners would be better able to
answer that kind of a question because he's been in the business and knows the
area.  Because a lot of these areas in northern Alberta are somewhat different
than say southern Alberta where you don't have as much muskeg and swamps and
so on
and the water table may not be as high.  In northern Alberta these factors
come
into play.  The other thing too that I think's important to know is that
material
costs are somewhat higher in the town of Peace River than in the City of
Edmonton
or Calgary.  So all these factors are included in these kinds of prices that
we
used in putting together our package.  For example, the school too.  We had
people
involved with that when we first started talking.  We had the local people say
this is the kind of school we'd like to have in place taking into account the
vocational training center and also the school itself and trying to put an
overall
education facility in place that would hopefully benefit more than just the
kids,
but also the people that need up-grading to a certain degree with the
different
shops, and also putting in place the kinds of goals that the younger children
may
work towards.  For example, as I pointed out earlier, we've talked about a vet
and
we've also talked about game-ranching.  These then become reality once you can
put
these things together to a stage where they're actually working.  So I guess a
lot
of this stuff is intertwined.  That's something we've been accustomed to in
the
past where we were dependent on a certain area and we were confined to that
area
because anytime we got outside of that, we had the Beaver and Slavey on the
north
and west and other Crees to the north, east and south of us.  So we always
respected their territory and they respected ours and that's how we've
operated
all these years until the oil development moved in and then they wanted to
take
everything.

Fred Lennarson:  Maybe just one little conceptual handle on this thing.  When
the
traditional economy was being destroyed, the Lubicon people sat down as a
group
and tried to figure out what they could do about this situation.  Everything
in
this proposal flows from the experiences that they had.  Bernard said that
they
depend upon moose for food.  The moose are gone.  What can they do?  There
used to
be buffalo in the area.  The old people had found old buffalo skulls.  Maybe
they
can raise buffalo.  Another key part of this whole thing is the Lubicon
people,
culturally and in terms of their religion, see the land as something that you
support and take care and then it supports and takes care of you.  The oil
companies, on the other hand, see the land as something you exploit and move
on. 
So there's been the tension all along.  The Lubicon people as a goal really
are
trying to figure out a way they can survive on domestic plants and animals in
a
smaller area because they no longer have the option of wild plants and animals
in
a big area.  Then as Bernard said we went to people in relevant businesses and
we
got actual quotes.  These are not guesstimates.  These are all based on actual
quotes from people in the business, the people who run the veterinary clinic
in
Peace River advised the Lubicons on how to set it up.  The farming equipment
prices are all quotes from people -- and the best quotes we could find.  When
we
talked to the government in December of '88 about these numbers, in instance
after
instance they thought the Lubicon numbers were too low.  And the reason they
thought the Lubicon numbers were too low was because we aggressively pursued
the
lowest possible numbers for all of the things the Lubicons wanted to include
in
their proposal.

Jennifer Klimek:  I have one other question out of that.  When you say the
government has thought the numbers were too low, is it that there's no
disagreement as to the numbers but just a disagreement as to whether or not
you
should get that particular item?  Is that where the disagreement is?

Fred Lennarson:  That was certainly the situation in December of '88.  Bob
Sachs
here might want to talk about it now, but when we were meeting there was
initially
some disagreement on some kinds of numbers.  In other words they said "We
don't
think you need two tractors.  Why can't you use the same tractor to do both of
these different things?"  We worked and worked on that trimming out any
possible
fat in the proposals.  But at the end of that process there was no longer any
disagreement over the numbers.  The disagreement was over on whether the items
should be included at all.

Jennifer Klimek:  And then one final question.  I notice this is a 1990
document. 
Are you going to be factoring in inflation or is this document still the one
that's on the table from your point of view.

Fred Lennarson:  Those are the actual quotes in 1988 dollars.  And as you'll
see,
although it's a 1990 document, all of the things say 1988 numbers.  And the
reason
for that is that those are actual quotes.  To up-date them we'd have to go
back to
all of the different vendors again and get up-dated quotes.  We haven't been
able
to do that so we just rely upon the quotes in 1988 dollars.

Menno Wiebe:  I have one question I'd like to tag maybe for tomorrow to answer
and
address especially to the Elders, if they'd willing to speak to this tomorrow. 
I
think we'd be interested in hearing something about the spiritual connection
you
have to the Lubicon area.  If you could give us some insights on that that
would
be helpful to us.  So we can save that one until tomorrow.

Than I have a few factual questions.  Bernard, I've heard you talk about a
settlement that would provide a long-range economic base.  You are not talking
only about cash settlement but that which would have long-range sustainability
and
we've read your proposal with the plans in it.  Could you say just a little
bit
more about how you see the transition being made?  If the hunting tradition is
really going because of depletion of game and maybe also resistance of the
younger
ones to go hunting -- unless we'd like to be corrected on that...(change
tapes)...

Bernard Ominayak:  ...and hopefully that we're able to get the Elders to make
a
few comments or if there're any questions that may arise or with comments in
general.  In so far as looking at the long-range plans I guess we've looked at
a
number of ways to try and deal with these situations.  For example, we've got
people who are 40 years old and older.  A lot of them are not going to want to
get
into anything but hunting and trapping.  We've gone back to them and we've
said
what would you like to do.  They said we want to do what we've been doing.  So
keeping that in mind, we've tried to look at it from different angles.  

One of the things that we've done is tried to deal with the Alberta Government
on
that particular topic, where we started negotiating with them on a
wildlife/management committee that would look at and deal with the whole
traditional territory where our traplines are and also where we do a lot of
the
hunting.  For example, when an oil development was going to come into this
area
they would have to go to this committee for their license and so on. 
Depending on
which area they wanted to work in they'd have to get the authorization.  One
of
the things that we pushed very heavily on was to get equal representation and
equal say on this committee by our people.  They were talking about involving
Forestry and they were talking about involving Fish and Wildlife.  The thing
on
that was that if there was an oil company coming in and wanting to do a
particular
job within our traditional area, they would go through this committee.  If
they
got their okay then one of the things that we wanted to put in there, too, was
to
have an equal opportunity for the kinds of work that may be coming in through
this
particular oil company -- not any kind of preferential treatment but rather an
equal opportunity if we were able to do the job that needed to be done, to
have an
equal opportunity to be able to bid for the work.  The important thing in this
set-up was what we were looking at was because of the depletion of the game,
for
example moose, we talked about how best do we deal with the problem.  We tried
in
the past where we said, let's not hunt this fall or this winter to try and
bring
back some of the moose.  But the minute we did that we saw everybody else
coming
in and hunting, so it didn't do any good to try and hold off.  We had to
compete
with these guys in order to have the moose that came into the area.  But with
this
wildlife management committee, we figured if the moose were really down -- and
they are down -- so maybe it would be good if we didn't hunt for 1 year or 2
years
to try and bring back some of the moose into the area.  In the fall there's a
tendency of moose moving around a lot.  They come out of the different areas
into
our area when they're mating.  So maybe, we thought, if hunting was prevented
for
a year that some of these animals would stay, depending on how much activity
and
so on was taking place in the given areas.  Or we look at certain areas and
stop
hunting in those areas, depending on what the situation was.  But these are
the
kind of ideas that we were talking about.

Same thing with trapping.  For example, they reduced our trappers to one lynx
and
one fisher one winter.  We couldn't kill two lynx, we couldn't kill more than
one
fisher.  Our trappers were out there and they had their traps out.  One day
maybe
they caught two lynx.  What did they do with the other one?  Fish and Wildlife
wanted to take it and sell it.  So we were caught in a situation where, while
we
were trying to look at conservation, everything seemed to be against us.  So
we
said, okay, if that's the case, if the lynx are depleting and they wanted to
put a
control on that, then let's not trap.  But then when we go in and we want to
renew
our trapline they say, "Well you guys didn't do anything, therefore you
shouldn't
be having a trapline."  They said "there's a lot of people on this waiting
list
that are wanting traplines within this area."  So we're caught in this
situation
where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

These are the kinds of things that are important to us because of the
particular
way of life our people and that fact that they would like to try and preserve
that
as long as possible.

So that is one of the ideas that we've looked at.  The other one is
game-ranching,
as Fred pointed out, there's been buffalo in the past in that area and we've
got a
few buffalo at this point.  There're very few, but what we wanted to do was
look
at how they adapted to our area and what it would take to raise them.  Do you
have
to feed them year-round?  Do you have to feed them grain?  How are they going
to
adapt?  They've done very well.  They're not hard to keep and you only feed
them
when the snow is deep.  They're strong and they can do well on their own.

Menno Wiebe:  Just a few additional questions.  We're talking about the
immediate
reserve area...and beyond that the larger hunting area.  How much development,
either in terms of oil extraction or timber harvesting...(has occurred
in)...the
proposed land areas in question -- have calculations been made about the
amount of
monies extracted from them.  I want to get to the point of the question.  What
contributions have been made to community building by either the oil companies
or
Daishowa?

Bernard Ominayak:  With the billions of dollars that have been extracted by
way of
natural resources off our traditional territory, there has not been a red cent
that has been coming back to the community other than welfare from the federal
government.  There're been a lot of claims made by governments that they can't
be
handing out tax dollars to Native people like the Lubicons all the time.  I
don't
think we're talking about any tax payers' dollars when we're talking about a
settlement for the Lubicon people, considering the amount of money that's been
extracted through the various oil development and also the logging companies
up to
this point.  

You mentioned the two areas or the three areas.  In so far as the 91 square
miles
right around Lubicon Lake itself -- we went out of our way not to include the
existing pump jacks that are to the south and to the north and to the east of
Lubicon Lake itself where we selected the 91 sq. miles.  That also holds true
for
the 2 sq. miles at Haig Lake and also the 2 sq. miles at Bison Lake.  There
are no
producing wells or any pump jacks within those lands that were set aside in
the
Grimshaw Agreement.  On the 16 sq. miles where we just hold the surface
rights,
before any work can take place by the government we would have to have an
equal
say or we'd have to authorize any development that may transpire within those
16
sq. miles.

Menno Wiebe:  Your selection of that larger plot of land -- did you
intentionally
try to avoid lands on which there were pump jacks?

Bernard Ominayak:  That is correct.  That's what I said.  We were having
enough
problems trying to get lands and we always try to consider other peoples'
interests in this fight.  Hard as it is, we still try to do that.  That's one
of
the reasons why we went the way we did.  Also, within the 91 square miles,
we've
kept the oil development out of there for the last 4 or 5 years.  We've told
all
the oil companies that nobody is going to do any kind of exploratory work or
any
drilling of any kind within the 95 square miles.  We did catch one seismic
company
that snuck in through the back door a couple of winters ago.  And we had to
assist
them in getting out of there.  But we haven't had too much problem keeping
them
out.  There's been interest indicated by a number of different oil companies
wanting to explore within those lands, but at this point we don't know if
there's
anything in there, or if there's nothing.

Menno Wiebe:  Would you confirm for me here -- the larger areas designated for
hunting outside of the 95 square miles, however, has a lot of oil and timber
development in it?

Bernard Ominayak:  That is correct.

Fred Lennarson:  I'd like to elaborate just a little bit on Bernard's remarks
about the discussions with the province.  We can provide materials on that as
well
which I don't believe you have.  The Lubicon position historically has been
that
they wanted to retain wildlife management and environmental protection rights
over
the bigger area.  At Grimshaw Premier Getty agreed to talk about that.  In
subsequent negotiations with the province, there was an agreement in principle
--
it was part of the bigger deal which has never been done -- but there was
agreement in principle with the province that the entire Lubicon territory
would
be established as a special wildlife zone, and there would be, as Bernard
said,
there would be a committee of people that would be in the majority Aboriginal
people from the area who would constitute this committee.  They would, among
other
things, establish the number of big game that could be taken, the number of
big
game that would be required by the Aboriginal people of the area for
subsistence,
and the number that could be taken in total.  If 500 could be taken and the
Aboriginal people needed 300 of the 500 that could be taken, then only 200
tags
could be issued to people from the outside area.  There is a provincial
computerized system for protecting particularly sensitive areas.  If, for
example,
there's a breeding ground or a burial ground or the like you put that in the
computer system and then whenever there's an application for somebody to do
development work, they are advised that they cannot drill a well in the middle
of
a burial ground or an animal breeding ground or something.  Then there are a
series of other powers that this committee would hold with regard to the
establishment of forestry practices in the area and other things.  But the
major
powers have to do with hunting and management of traplines.

There's one other element which Bernard may want to speak to as well, and that
is
called a Trappers' Support Program.  The model comes out of Quebec with the
James
Bay Cree.  Especially for the older people who find their identity and
feelings of
self-worth going to a trapline -- these guys get up and go to the trapline
every
day because that's what a responsible human being does, whether you catch
anything
or not...The problem is that these people can no longer support themselves off
the
land but neither can they support themselves in the bush on welfare with
store-
bought groceries.  So the Lubicon people have put forward a proposal, and this
is
included in the package in the Lubicon Draft Settlement Agreement, called the
Trapper' Support Program.  The idea of the Trappers' Support Program is that
the
trappers would receive compensation for the difference between what they used
to
be able to make in the bush and what they can now make, related to the number
of
days that they actually put in trapping...So it would enable a guy to trap
even
though he could not technically be self-supporting by only trapping.

Menno Wiebe:  Just for the record here, Bernard, when you proposed or were
talking
about a wildlife management committee or commission, you were talking about
equal
and full participation?  I'm drawing this to our attention because many of the
land claim agreements have the Native people as advisory to the committee.  We
just want to make sure that we're hearing you on that?

Bernard Ominayak:  That is correct Menno.  To agree to play an advisory role
in
any kind of committee we've see time after time doesn't work.  It's just a
complete waste of time on anybody's part, especially the Aboriginal people. 
So we
either have to have an equal say as to what takes place within our traditional
territory or we have to do something else.

Sandy Day:  I too say welcome.  As a group our goal is to get negotiations
going
again between you and the government.  With that in mind, I ask, do you
Bernard
have a vision on how to open negotiations or a different tactic or way to go
about
trying to reach some settlement?

Bernard Ominayak:  We have numerous ways or a lot of ideas that would probably
work if the will was there on the part of the government.  But as long as it's
not
there then I don't see what is going to work.  Here, with this Commission...I
would hope that they take the opportunity to participate and hopefully this
may
lead to a more substantive discussion than what we've had in the past years. 
I
think that as more people become aware and more people become involved in this
process I would hope that would enhance the will of the governments that
hasn't
been there for a number of years.  But as I pointed out to the people, the
media
and that, I think it would be in the best interests of all that this matter be
resolved -- meaning the oil development, the logging companies and everybody
else
that's involved in stealing our resources.  What is being done up to this
point
and is still going on can not go on forever.  That is something that has to be
understood by a lot of people...I would hope that they take every advantage of
getting the assistance of the Commission here in arriving at a fair and just
settlement for the Lubicon people.

John MacMillan:  Bernard, I see in the red book there's a press release
stating
that maybe the Lubicons are asking too much or are greedy.  But it would have
been
very easy for you to outline your reservation and absorb those oil wells,
wouldn't
it have been?  It was intentionally done that you did not take them into your
reservation, is this right?

Bernard Ominayak:  Well, John, yes, that's what I said just a little earlier
to
Menno.  We went out of our way not to include existing producing wells within
those lands that were set aside in the Grimshaw Agreement.  I think more than
that, with all the development that has taken place within our whole
traditional
area, as long as we don't have an agreement with both levels of government
then
those lands and whatever resources those lands contain are rightfully ours
until
we get an agreement in place.  Within those lands they've extracted billions
of
dollars and billions of dollars.  We're not talking about tax payers' dollars
when
we're talking about a settlement for the Lubicon people.  If we were looking
at
the kinds of money that was hauled out of there, you know, you take $170
million
versus I don't know how many billions of dollars, it's peanuts.  I mean, this
is a
real good deal on the parts of the governments if they were prepared to look
at an
agreement.  But no, it seems to be greed as one of the major players in this
war
where they are stalling and stalling and stalling and in the meantime they're
stealing and stealing.  That's the game they're playing.  I know they're
putting
us under all kinds of pressure because the longer they prevent us from getting
an
agreement, the more resources they steal.  Also at the same time, they've put
all
kinds of obstacles all around us.  For example, the Woodland Cree, right now
they're in the process of creating another Band to the east of us.  That's to
try
and divide and conquer the Lubicon people and they say, "the more Lubicons we
steal from the Lubicon Nation, then the bigger the problem it is for the
Lubicon
people."  So they'd rather not deal with us, but at the same time, we're there
and
we've been able to stand up to this point.

Fred Lennarson:  I'd just like to make one small point of clarification.  When
Bernard met with Premier Getty in October of 1988 and made this deal on the 79
sq.
miles and the 16 sq. miles, Bernard took the position that there were no oil
wells
within that area.  That was what was believed at the time.  Afterwards it was
realized that there were a couple of oil wells just inside the line around the
periphery and so what the Lubicon people did was agree that the places where
these
oil wells were located would be included in part of the 16 sq. miles where the
Lubicons do not have sub-surface rights and that they would give the province
access to those particular oil wells.  So what Bernard says when he says
there're
no oil wells within that area is true in this sense.  The Lubicons took that
position in the beginning and when a couple of wells were located just inside
the
boundary, the agreement was then made that the sub-surface rights belonging to
those wells would remain with the province...The Lubicons are not benefitting
from
any of these wells.

John MacMillan:  Another thing I'd like the Commission to hear is the numbers
of
the Woodland Cree.  There were probably 780 members of the Woodland Cree and
today
about, what, 250 living in Cadotte?  Could you go through that bit, Bernard? 
What
I'm trying to get at here is that a lot of those members aren't even from the
area.  Is that right or is that wrong?

Bernard Ominayak:  Well, John, I guess depending on which report you want to
follow.  As far as we know the membership of the Woodland Cree at this point
is
700+.  It is true that maybe there's 200, maybe 300 people living at the
community
of Cadotte Lake.  But what they had done in the process of trying to build up
their membership, they went out of their way to recruit members from all the
different areas.  They went all the way to B.C., Peace River, Grimshaw, all
those
little towns, High Prairie, Slave Lake, Edmonton here, Wabasca, Bigstone --
all
these different areas in trying to build this so-called Woodland Band.  A lot
of
them were getting in under C-31.  One of the things that the federal
government
had done was set up a special committee to deal with C-31 registration of the
Woodland Cree in Ottawa.  They had this committee set up and they went around
taking applications from many of the Native people in the surrounding area
under
this new bill, Bill C-31.  Then they would put them on the Lubicon membership
list
and then the minute they got them on, they'd transfer them to Woodland.  This
was
all being done in Ottawa.  So a lot of the people weren't even aware as to
what
was happening.  In the meantime, though, the Chief and Council of the
Woodland,
especially the Chief, thought that if they brought up their membership that
meant
more land.  But what the government was doing was they only had a few people
that
they were giving land for, because their position has been -- and I'm not sure
if
it's still the position to this day -- was no land under C-31.  So while these
guys were jacking up their membership, the land that they were each getting
was
getting smaller because all these people are getting on their list.  So
anyway,
that's about all I know.  I don't really pay too much attention as to what
kind of
an agreement they make or to what they're doing in so far as the Woodland is
concerned, because it's really a pitiful situation where the government should
be
bloody ashamed of themselves for the kind of shafting they've done to these
Native
people.  I'm not questioning or arguing the point whether the people of the
Woodland have any rights.  Whatever rights they may have had are all gone and
what
I see is just a disgraceful agreement and the government...should be ashamed
for
what they've done to those people.

John MacMillan:  But aren't you going to have to let some of those people back
into your reservation if there is a broken family situation?

Bernard Ominayak:  Well John, in reality, whoever was included or whoever
signed
the kind of release that the Woodland people signed in order to get the
agreement
that they got is not going to be a member that's going to be beneficial to the
Lubicon people by any means at this point.  That is reality...Most of them are
still living in our community even up to this point.  We, from the community,
have
tried to avoid any kind of tension with those people, with the understanding
that
they made a choice on their own to go some place else.  But at the same time,
they're coming back, coming back and asking if they can rejoin the Lubicon
people. 
So this is a continuing thing and it's a problem that's going to have to be
dealt
with internally.  But it's a problem that we see and it's there and it's a
reality.  How best we deal with it, I guess, is a question that is before
ourselves as a Lubicon Nation.  But as you brought it out, in trying to get an
agreement the government bought them.  They've got absolutely no right at all
from
the government's point of view at this point.  But having said that, that's
not a
factor on our part.  It's something that we will have to consider at some
point as
we face it...(change tapes)...

John MacMillan:  ...family member, $1,000 to sign to the Lubicon Band?  Or to
the
Woodland Cree?

Bernard Ominayak:  To the Woodland Cree.  Certainly not to the Lubicons.  I
think
they'd rather hang me than give me a thousand dollars at this point.  There's
been
articles written on that too, also, a lot of the people have come to us a
month
later with the problems that they were having.  First they were paying them
$1,000
per family member if the vote turned right and then they paid them each $50 to
vote.  If there was a family of five, they got $5,000.  But later on, after
everything had gone through and the referendum was in favor of signing the
agreement, then they turned around and deducted these payments from peoples'
welfare allowance.  So they were in a big mess there for quite a while.  A lot
of
them came crying to us trying to get welfare until their time was made up. 
But
there's been no rules, or there's been no right or wrong in a lot of this
stuff. 
For example, the Indian Affairs Minister just on his own created this Band
under
Section 17 of the Indian Act.  It's something that we may have been more
accustomed to a hundred years ago, but at this point in time, well, it still
happens.

Fred Lennarson:  If I may, I'd like to provide the Commission with just a
little
bit of history on the creation of this thing.  I don't know if everybody here
knows the history of it.  There is a man by the name of Henry Laboucan who was
born in a neighboring community, or his father was from a neighboring
community. 
His father's name was Henry McGillivray and his mother was a Lubicon.  His
mother
left his father and moved in with a Lubicon man for a couple of years and then
left the Lubicon man and moved to a place called Grouard.  They moved out of
the
Lubicon area in '49 and have lived in Grouard ever since.  In the early 70s
Henry
Laboucan got the old Lubicon man, with whom his mother had lived for a couple
of
years, to sign an affidavit saying he was Henry's father.  It wasn't
technically
true but as a cultural phenomena, in these communities the people that raise
you
are called mother and father.  So the old man said sure "I'll sign an
affidavit
saying I'm your father" and Henry used this to get on the status list of
Lubicon
Indians.  But he'd moved out of the area to Grouard.  So after the Grimshaw
Agreement and it looked like there was going to be a settlement of Lubicon
land
rights,  Henry Laboucan contacted a provincial MLA by the name of Larry Shaben
and
said he wanted to pursue something called land in severalty.  Land in
severalty is
a provision of Treaty 8 which provides land of 160 acres per person for
everybody
who wants to live apart from everybody else.  Henry didn't want to go back and
live in Lubicon territory.  He hadn't been there since 1949.  He'd grown up in
Grouard and he wanted reserve land there.  Larry Shaben referred this request
for
land in severalty to the provincial negotiating team and they gave it to the
feds
and the feds brought it to the negotiating table in December of 1988.  What
they
said to us is, "We have an inquiry here about land in severalty from a guy
named
Henry Laboucan and our first point is that we don't deal with individuals.  We
have to negotiate aboriginal land rights with the aboriginal society, not with
individuals.  So we're not going to talk to him.  And we want to say to you on
the
Lubicon negotiating team, if you want to negotiate land in severalty we want
to
tell you right now that there's never going to be any land in severalty
settlements with the Lubicon people or anybody else."  Justice Department
lawyer
Ivan Whitehall said, "If you pursue it we guarantee you we'll tie you up in
court
forever."  I just make this point.  He didn't say, "We'll refer it to the
courts
for determination."  He said, "We'll use the rules of the court to prevent you
from ever being able to take advantage of this particular clause of the
treaty."

At any rate the Lubicon negotiating team said land in severalty is not on our
agenda.  The Lubicon people didn't tell us to negotiate any land in severalty.

Henry is operating on his own and as far as we're concerned he's got to
straighten
this out with the Lubicons.  If the Lubicon people tell us to negotiate land
in
severalty, that's what we'll do.  But unless or until that happens we won't do
it.

The federal government then broke down negotiations the following January with
the
so-called "take-it-or-leave-it" offer, copies of which you have.  That was on
January 24th as I recall. The first part of February -- and I'd have to check
the
date but it was something like February 10th -- they made arrangements to go
and
meet with Henry Laboucan up in High Prairie.  We have information about what
happened at the meeting.  What they said to Henry at that meeting was, "We
can't
negotiate a separate deal with you independent of the Lubicons, but if you can
identify other Lubicons who agree with you, we'll help get them on the list,
overthrow the existing Lubicon leadership in the election scheduled for that
fall,
and then we'll make a deal and give you your land in severalty."  And it was
at
that point that the government agents, working with some of the aboriginal
people
in the area, starting beating the bushes in High Prairie, Peace River and
other
places, trying to find aboriginal people to go on this list.  These aboriginal
people, many of whom had been taken off the membership lists of half-a-dozen
Bands
in the surrounding area, went along to try and get their names back on the
status
lists.  The government was trying to use them to overthrow the existing
Lubicon
leadership.  They were trying to use the federal agents to get back on the
status
list.  So they were trying to use each other.  

The government hired a Calgary lawyer by the name of Bob Sachs -- not Bob
Sachs,
Bob Young.  I'm sorry.  They flew Bob Young from Calgary up to Edmonton and
introduced him to these people in the Edmonton office of Indian Affairs.  They
flew these dissidents down from High Prairie on a chartered plane using our
tax
money and introduced them to their new lawyer.  Bob Young next went to a
cocktail
party in Calgary and mentioned that he'd been hired to represent Lubicon
dissidents.  There was somebody from the Calgary Herald at the party.  The
story
broke and then the government started claiming there were 200 Lubicon
dissidents,
300 Lubicon dissidents, 400 Lubicon dissidents, more Lubicon dissidents than
there
were Lubicon people.

So the Lubicon leadership, facing the situation where their mandate was being
challenged, who they represented was being challenged, called an early
election
and that election was uncontested and Lubicon leadership was re-elected
unanimously.  Now what happened is these so-called dissidents by definition
had no
political base in Lubicon territory.  They were largely from these surrounding
communities.  

The following week the government announced that they were going to set up the
Woodland Cree Band, which up to that point didn't exist.  There's no historic
Woodland Cree community.  The Woodland Cree existed only in motel rooms in
places
like Peace River in meetings called by agents of the federal government,
trying to
set this thing up.  

They then created the Woodland Cree under a section of the Indian Act to which
Bernard referred which I call to the Commission's attention.  I have it before
me. 
It's Section 17 and it reads as follows:

    "The Minister may, whenever he considers it desirable, constitute new
bands
    and establish band lists with respect thereto from existing bands or from
the
    Indian Register if requested to do so by an unspecified number of persons
    proposing to form the new band."

That means if you've got a membership of 500 people they can go in and find 5
people and try to cook up a little deal with them.  And if they can make that
deal, and solicit a request which is what happened in this case, they've met
their
first requirement.

Two:

    "Where pursuant to Subsection 1" -- which I just read -- "a new Band has
been
    established from an existing band or any part thereof, such portion of the
    reserve lands and funds of the existing band as the Minister in his sole
    discretion determines" -- he can just sit at his desk and sign a letter
and
    decide this -- "shall be held for the use and benefit of the new band."

The third section reads:

    "No protest may be made in respect to the deletion from or the addition to
a
    band list consequence on the exercise by the Minister of any of his powers
    under subsection 1."

We need to think about the consequences of this.  This would be like if Prime
Minister Mulroney didn't like Don Getty so he sent somebody to Edmonton and
picked
up a few people on the streets of Edmonton and dealt with them instead of duly
elected provincial leaders.  That's the kind of anti-democratic power this
Indian
Act gives to the federal minister and this is how he's used it in this
situation
to create this band which has no history.  There is no Woodland Cree
community. 
It didn't exist until these disparate individuals were pulled together in the
fashion I've indicated.  And the government now, Mr. Siddon last November 1st
and
at other points as well, says the Lubicon people no longer enjoy aboriginal
land
rights to their traditional territory because other people -- namely the
Woodland
Cree -- who in his words have an equal right to the area have ceded the
aboriginal
land rights to that area.

You'll hear more about that.  I just thought that background material might be
helpful to the people who don't know it.

Jacques Johnson:  So I guess that takes care of the Lubicon claim to
aboriginal
rights, right?

Fred Lennarson:  It depends on who you talk to.

Jacques Johnson:  I have a question maybe to Mr. Sachs.  In regards to the on-
going negotiations, I read in a newspaper clipping recently in regards to this
Commission a voice coming from the Indian Affairs department says that they
have
no comments because of the sensitive nature of the on-going negotiations
between
the Lubicons and the feds.  I wonder if you would have any comment about that
Mr.
Sachs?

Bob Sachs:  Heretofore, the negotiations have been sort of one-sided in
nature. 
What has occurred is back in November of last year, Bernard spoke with Siddon.

Bernard presented Siddon with the Lubicon proposal and asked for his response
to
that proposal.  There has still not been a response to that proposal.  In
essence
what has transpired over the last, well, since February, is a series of
meetings
in which their, according to their view of things, new and improved offer has
been
placed on the table.  I believe you have that before you.  The essence of the
difficulty is much what Jennifer was getting at earlier, and that is -- and
probably Regena and Don who deal constantly with government can understand
this
way of thinking -- that there is nothing in the Lubicon proposal which they
will
agree to which does not fit into an existing program.  In other words, if one
wants -- and we'll just take an example -- an old folks' home for lack of a
better
term.  There is no existing federal program to build an old folks' home so you
don't get it.  It is program-specific and when they talk about their offer, it
is
always in terms of dollars.  In other words, their very generous offer is
always
in so many dollars.  Of course, when you analyze their offer, a lot of those
very
generous dollars are not in fact a solid proposal.  In other words, it's what
Fred
was talking about.  "Well, you may qualify for this program which can yield
you up
to x number of dollars.  You may be able to do this.  You may be able to do
that."


So the difficulty that we see at the present time is a difficulty that we've
been
encountering now for 3 1/2 years.  Their response is much the same as it was
to
the negotiations which took place in 1988-89.  And that is as I described it.

Those items where there is a commonality to them -- a school, a house, a road,
those sorts of things -- they have again, if you know anything about
government,
some very complicated formulas as to the amounts that are placed in their
offer. 
So many people yield you so many houses.  So many people produces so many
children
which produces a school of this size.  That is all sort of population driven
or
formula driven and does not really speak to the fundamental issues that weigh
in
this particular situation.  The Lubicon situation is a very particular
situation. 
And for god knows how many years they've been trying to convince the federal
government that this sort of thinking of compartmentalizing various pieces to
the
puzzle is just not the way to deal with this issue.  

And so in essence nothing much different in terms of the way of looking at
this
problem has changed in the federal government in the 3 1/2 years since
negotiations originally commenced.

Jacques Johnson:  Thank you Mr. Sachs.  That's very helpful.  So in a sense
you're
saying that there has been no progress in negotiations, really no movement
worth
speaking of?

Bob Sachs:  Numbers have sort of been gerrymandered around but in essence from
a
format point of view -- it's exactly the same format.  In other words, if
schools
fit into a program we have then yes you get a school.  If an old folks' home
doesn't fit into a program, sorry then there's no money for that.  On the
socio-
economic side, from a business point of view, again, if you qualify for a
program. 
That's the sort of thinking that has gone on and nothing much has changed in
that
type of thinking.

Jacques Johnson:  I have one question for Chief Bernard here.  It is very
simple. 
Regarding your membership, I know that there seems to be something very sacred
about membership lists.  It is very difficult to get the lists.  I don't know
if
there has been a public list of the Woodland Cree people.  Would it be
possible
for the Lubicons to give this Commission a band list, if that's what you call
it?

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess, just looking back at the experience we had with
providing information and stuff for the governments to work off is one of the
questions that we'd have to ask ourselves.  But I certainly will bring that up
before the Council and the people and depending upon what they say in
providing
that particular information, we've tried to provide whatever information we
had to
the Commission, so I would hope that there is a possibility that that may be
possible.  But at this point I can not answer your question as to whether I
can or
not.

The other thing I would just like to maybe add to Bob's comments to you in so
far
as the supposed negotiations at this point in time.  Basically what is
happening -
- and I think the Commission has been provided with two books that are
supposedly
proposals from the federal government.  Basically what you're seeing is the
$45
million "take-it-or-leave-it" offer that was there.  They're trying to work
around
it, but basically from our point of view that's what it is.  Whether we can go
on
beyond that, I really don't know.  We hope that there's a possibility that
they
will get involved in this and also to utilize the help that may be provided,
depending on what the outcome of this particular Commission does.  So with
that I
guess that's the only comment I've got in that regard.  Fred here is jumping
up
and down.

Fred Lennarson:  I'd like to just make a couple of additions to that.  We've
looked at these most recent offers in terms of the impact of inflation --
because
these are in 1992 dollars whereas the "take-it-or-leave-it" offer was in 1988
dollars -- and while some of the numbers have increased slightly, some of them
have in fact gone down even in terms of 1988 dollars.  So the bottom line is
that
the current proposals are worth less by some 8-10 million dollars than the
offer
in 1988.  Thus the current proposals which are, as Bob describes, essentially
the
same and Bernard describes as essentially the same; as a matter of fact, in
terms
of dollars, are not as good as the so-called "take-it-or-leave-it" offer.

On the question of membership which has come up, the government keeps saying
the 
Lubicons have lost membership and the Lubicons have offered repeatedly to sit
down
and identify anybody whose name appears on both lists and bring them in and
ask
them where they want their names to appear.  The government has consistently
refused to do that.  The government has consistently refused to provide lists
for
the Woodland Cree for example.  They say that's private information.  Where on
the
other hand, Lubicon lists, which the Lubicon people provided to the
government,
were used by people going house to house when they were trying to talk people
into
joining the Woodland Cree, offering to buy people such things as these little
red
bush trikes and all the rest of it if they joined the Woodland Cree, and they
used
the Lubicon membership list to identify the people to approach.  So that's not
to
say you won't get it.  That's for the Lubicon people to decide.  But that's
what's
happened in the past and I think the Commission should know it.

Jacques Johnson:  I have one last question.  It's a very quick one and to
follow
through on John MacMillan's questioning.  Are there still potential oil and
gas
resources on the proposed reservation?

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess that's anybody's guess.  At this point we've got no
knowledge as to whether there's any oil or gas within those 95 sq. miles. 
There's
been some suspicion that there was some natural gas in part of the area.  But
at
this point, I just can't say yes there is or no there is none.  When the
question
arose from Mr. MacMillan, we did go out of our way, because we could have
easily
pulled in I don't know how many wells if we wanted to, without going out of
our
way to include wells within the 91 sq. miles right around Lubicon itself.  The
only thing I can say is I don't know if there's anything under those 91 sq.
miles
at and around Lubicon at this point.

Jacques Johnson:  It's 4:35.  Maybe we should call it a day.  I would like to
thank all the Lubicon people who have appeared before our Commission today. 
Also
members of the media and members of the general population.  We're very happy
and
encouraged by your presence.  I'd also like to thank my peers here at the
front
table and invite all of you to resume tomorrow morning at 9:30.  We have some
outstanding issues that we would like to discuss with you.  Among some of
those
are the question of compensation that we have barely touched.  There's the
question of aboriginal rights.  Maybe something having to do with
self-government. 
At the same time, the meaning of your presence within Treaty 8.  Right now,
what
does that really mean.  Perhaps we will deal a little more with the
infrastructure
question that has been dealt with somewhat but maybe there's more.  The
members of
the Commission will be meeting immediately after the closure of this meeting. 
We
will be together reviewing what happened today and also planning for tomorrow
morning.  Of course, this meeting will be in camera.  We have to have some
time by
ourselves.  So we'd like to thank you all for your participation and for your
presence.  Have a good evening.