Transcript of Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review Public Hearing, June 02,
1992 

Commission Members Present

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

Commission Members Absent

Wilfred Barranoik                           
Regena Crowchild                            
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:  We are beginning our second day of the Lubicon
Settlement
Commission of Review hearings.  I'd like to welcome all of you here again
today. 
We're very grateful that you came in even greater numbers than yesterday, that
the
youth component has been added.  We hope that it'll be a good day even though
it's
raining outside.  I think it's good for the land and it's nice and warm inside
and
dry.  I thought of sharing with you a very old prayer, it's probably around
1,400
years old and I think it's a beautiful prayer that sometimes we use at
meetings.

We stand before you God conscious of our sinfulness but aware that we gather
in
Your name.  Come to us.  Remain with us and enlighten our hearts.  Give us
light
and strength to know You well.  To make it our own and to live it in our
lives. 
Guide us by Your wisdom. Support us by Your power, for You are God.  You
desire
justice for all.  Enable us to uphold the rights of others.  Do not allow us
to be
misled by ignorance or corrupt us by fear or favor.  Unite us to Yourself in
the
bond of love and keep us faithful to all that is true.  As we gather in Your
name
may we temper justice with love so that all decisions may be pleasing to You
and
earn the reward promised to good and faithful servants.  Amen.

Jennifer Klimek:  I'd like to welcome the Lubicon people and the audience here
today.  What I'd like to start out with is asking if the Lubicon people or any
of
the other representatives have anything to add to anything that was said
yesterday
that they want to clarify on or elaborate on or anything?

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess I'd like to start off by thanking you people for
the
welcome and also Father Johnson for the prayer that he said.  As far as going
back
to yesterday and what was discussed, I don't think we at this point have
anything
further to add.  But I guess basically we welcome any kind of question that
may
arise from yesterday from the Commission.  I'm sure we'll be going back to
some of
the items that were discussed yesterday through the other areas that we'll be
looking at this morning.

Jennifer Klimek:  Thank you.  Jacques outlined sort of the agenda we had today
and
we would like to point out if there's anything you want to add in addition to
that, by all means, let us know because we certainly want to hear your
position. 
We had anticipated that we'd probably go to lunch, and unless there was
anything
that needed to be done after lunch, we'd probably adjourn then.  We'll  see
how it
goes.  We'd like to start out with the compensation issue and John MacMillan
would
like to address that issue.

John MacMillan:  I would like the Commission to understand the quality of the
people we're talking to here.  Bernard you talked about welfare yesterday, but
any
time there was work to be done your people did it and did it well.  There's a
winter work force of over 4,000 people in the north in our area in
exploration. 
After the winter was over they all went on unemployment in the spring.  And
Walter
Whitehead, how many years were you a foreman for the government building
secondary
roads with heavy equipment and a workforce between 12 and 14 men?  Would I be
wrong in saying over 12 years?  And John Auger, the last 4 years he had a
workforce of 24-30 men running power saws, is that about right John?  Was
there
not the best fire fighting unit of men in Alberta -- Alberta Forestry used to
fly
them in and out of Little Buffalo and Cadotte for different fires all over
Alberta?  Am I wrong in saying that?  Is that right, Walter, that there was
one of
the finest fire units in Alberta that came out of that area?  I could go on
with
many names of the people from the area that are not here today that are
foremen
and are working good jobs.  And I know that these people could make this thing
work.  That's what I'm trying to get across to the Commission, that there's
the
brain power to make this proposal you're seeing on your farming, there are
different people I know that can make it work.

Bernard, I would hope the Commission will make you feel that there is a will
to
try and make this thing work for you.  I hope you believe that there is a will
here.  

Another thing that I want to mention is the cooperation between the Lubicon
people
and the oil companies that work in that area and the lumber companies.  There
is
probably the best of cooperation in the last 2 or 3 years, when they came and
laid
their plans out in front of the people of the Lubicons.  I'm sure that is
probably
the truth.  Is it not, Bernard?  So I think I could go on with all the
different
foremen that originated out of that country, but I'll leave that be now.  And
then
there's different things that may come up.  

I think they want to get into the compensation, the $100 million that you
people
are asking for.  The farmer in this area, in all of Alberta, every time a
seismic
line crosses their field they are compensated -- I can confirm this figure --
they
are compensated between $8-1,000 a kilometre.  Every time they use that line. 
There is not anything in your proposal asking for compensation on the travel
of
these lines.  If you take your map and look, multiply the kilometres that are
done
in your area and multiply it by 8 to 10 times, up to 20 times that they've
used it
since 1950, there's quite a dollar value in there.  But you've never even
asked
compensation on that.  So I think Fred would be able to maybe do some talk on
the
compensation from the oil people, you know, that have extracted the oil from
that
area.  I think maybe Fred you could take that on.

Fred Lennarson:  Sure John.  I think maybe a little bit of history on this
compensation question would be helpful.  When the Lubicon people first looked
at
the question of compensation, what they were interested in accomplishing and
what
they remain interested in accomplishing is an investment fund which will
generate
interest revenues for their people in perpetuity.  So that's their target.  I
make
that point in relation to my comments yesterday about the integrated plan,
every
element of this thing has got an important role to play in the Lubicon plans
to
once again become economically, politically and socially self-sufficient. 
They
looked at the question of compensation other places, and they looked at things
like per capita distribution, which is just the handing out of money to
individuals.  And they rejected it.  They rejected it explicitly.  One Lubicon
elder by the name of John Felix Laboucan said "If we're going to get into that
kind of thing they might as well just line us up against the wall now and
shoot
us".  So we're not talking in this fund about any distribution of money to
individuals.  We're talking about an interest generating fund, which as I said
yesterday, if it generates interest at the same rate as funds like the
Heritage
Trust Fund and a similar fund in Alaska, after inflation it will be about 4
1/2% a
year.  The money then would be money that the Lubicons would have independent
of
government or any other sources that they could use to help set their young
people
up in their own businesses, to help finance community improvement projects
that
they might need, and so on.  So it's a community fund that can only be spent
with
the agreement of the community and only the interest can be spent.

Historically, when the Lubicons first looked at that issue, the lawyers had a
great long list of damages.  Damages for loss of way of life, damages for
this,
damages for that, I don't remember how many of them there were, but there must
have been 15 or 20 of them.  When E. Davie Fulton was appointed by then
Federal
Indian Affairs Minister David Crombie to look into this question, he said to
the
Lubicons:  "These are very complicated and hard to quality and hard to
quantify
and I suggest therefore that we simplify it and instead of talking about all
of
these different legal categories, let's just talk about one thing.  Let's talk
about the value of programs, services and benefits which the Lubicon people
should
have been receiving going back to 1899 when the treaty was signed with people
in
the surrounding area but not the Lubicons."  The Lubicons initially rejected
that
proposal.  They said, "No, we're not a signatory to treaty and we don't make
any
claim to these kind of treaty benefits".  And Mr. Fulton argued that these are
not
just treaty benefits, that we're talking about monies appropriated by the
government of Canada for aboriginal people in Canada and that people in the
Territories, who are not a signatory to treaty and people in British Columbia
and
the Maritimes who are not signatories to treaty have for years been receiving
various kinds of program monies.  So on that basis, the Lubicons agreed to
look at
this approach to compensation.  It was Mr. Fulton's recommended approach in
1985. 


What we did was we talked to people in Ottawa with whom we work and we had
them go
to the archives of Canada and look up the amount of money that the government
of
Canada had appropriated every year going back to 1899.  We looked up in the
archives the number of aboriginal people the government was counting when they
allocated that money.  We divided one by the other and arrived at a per
capita. 
We called the Bank of Canada and we asked about interest rates over the years. 
We
called Stats Canada and we talked about inflation rates over the years.  We
then
identified all the money the Lubicon people had in fact received from the
government, going back primarily to about 1980-81 when they first started
receiving money from the government for things like housing.  We put this all
in
the computer and the number that came out with a population base of 500
Lubicons
was $167 million.  So this number was tabled with Mr. Fulton along with the
back-
up documentation which we can provide the Commission if anybody is interested
in
looking at all these endless pages of computer printouts.  But that's where
the
numbers came from.

Mr. Fulton looked at the thing and as an ex-Justice Minister and lawyer and
ex-
B.C. Supreme Court judge said, "I think this is a reasonable way to proceed
and I
understand it.  But it's an awful lot of money.  Can we, instead of talking
about
going back to 1899 can we talk about going back to 1939 for purposes of
calculating this amount?"  The Lubicon negotiating team argued the point and
said
they didn't see why the Lubicons should lose 40 years in compensation because
of
something the government didn't do, it wasn't the Lubicons' fault.  And if
this
was the approach the Lubicons were going to use, they thought the calculations
should go back to 1899.  That was the discussion that was going on with Mr.
Fulton
in 1985, and it was a serious discussion with Mr. Fulton.  He took this issue
quite seriously and said so in his discussion paper and publicly.

But unfortunately, Mr. Fulton, when he delivered this discussion paper
including
this and other items and his thoughts about these things, his mandate was
terminated by the government.  First the province refused to talk with him
further
and then the federal government replaced him with a negotiator whose mandate
was
clearly to try and push things back to before the time Mr. Fulton had been
appointed.  But that left one position on the table; namely, $167 million from
the
federal government for the value of lost programs, services and benefits
calculated as I've described.

In 1988, here in Edmonton, October 14th, the night before the Lubicons felt
obligated to establish passport control points in their territory and try to
defend themselves on the ground after a history which some of you I think know
and
others will be learning more about as a result of this exercise, there were
Lubicon negotiators and provincial negotiators meeting here in Edmonton
discussing
this matter, trying to head off assertion of jurisdiction scheduled for the
next
day.  Provincial negotiators -- John McCarthy -- asked the Lubicon negotiators
what the Lubicons were seeking by way of compensation from the province as
distinct from the federal government.  Lubicon negotiators said frankly we
didn't
have numbers, what we want to do is sit down and look at the value of
resources
that had been extracted and negotiate something that everybody can live with. 
That was the way we were proposing to go.  But McCarthy said that's not good
enough.  He said, "We've got to have a number or a formula right now.  We want
to
deal with it here tonight."  

The Lubicons did have some information.  The media has reported on a number of
occasions that the province receives about 20% of the value of the resources
in
royalties.  And secondly in 1981-82 the provincial government had filed an
affidavit in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in which they were arguing
that an
injunction shouldn't be granted because so much was at stake, and in that
affidavit they said that approximately $500 million a year was then being
extracted in resources from the traditional Lubicon territory.  So using those
two
numbers, and under pressure from John McCarthy to table a formula or number,
the
Lubicons tabled for discussion 10% of the province's 20%, frankly not knowing
where that would end up.  We had some guesses but we didn't have access to the
value of the resources and the royalties.

So now we had two positions.  One tabled with the feds, the value of lost
programs
and services calculated as I've indicated and totalling $167 million.  And a
second position on compensation tabled with the provincial government at their
behest which was 10% of the 20% of the royalties the Province has received on
the
resources.

The following week while the blockades were up, Premier Getty made a public
statement ...in which he said that the Lubicons had tabled a formula for
compensation which would produce in excess of $100 million in compensation. 
Now
of course the Premier got some of his facts wrong there.  He said $100 million
in
taxpayers' money and that clearly isn't what we were talking about.  Given the
Premier's numbers, if the Lubicons would receive in excess of $100 million
with a
formula of 10% of the Province's 20%, that meant that the Province had
received in
excess of $1 billion in royalties from Lubicon resources and that the oil
companies had extracted in excess of $5 billion.  

At any rate, that left two positions on the table: one with the feds, one with
the
province.  During negotiations in December of 1988 and following the
break-down in
negotiations in January 1989, federal and provincial negotiators repeatedly
asked
the Lubicon people to table a bottom-line position on compensation.  And
following
the break-down in negotiations they charged that the Lubicons were variously
claiming $110 to 275 million and they didn't know what they were doing and so
on. 
The $110 million would have been taking Fulton's proposal to go back to 1939. 
The
$275 million would have been a combination of the two positions.  At any rate,
the
Lubicons -- and I'd have to check my dates -- I think in December of 1989 and
in
response to repeated demands by the governments that the Lubicons table a
bottom-
line on compensation, the Lubicons tabled a figure of $100 million 1988
dollars
from all sources, and their target as I indicated is they'd like to generate
interest revenues after inflation of $4 1/2 million plus or minus for their
people
in perpetuity so that they have a source of independent revenues to meet the
responsibilities of the society.  

When we put together the Lubicon draft settlement agreement, the way
compensation
was presented was in the form of $60 million from each level of government,
which
of course is $120 million instead of $100 million.  The reason for that is
that
there's an approach in here which has the province providing their $60 million
over a four-year period and the feds over a six-year period and when you
factor in
the impact of inflation on this thing it would come out to $100 million in
1988
dollars.  The 1988 dollar thing is a benchmark for all the Lubicon proposals
as we
indicated yesterday because that's when the Lubicons actually got their
quotes. 
That's when the tractor salesmen and everybody else gave them quotes on the
things
for the draft settlement agreement.

Anyway, that's the history of the thing...the Lubicons have lost far more than
they'll ever hope to recoup financially.  Most of these things you can't even
put
a dollar number on.  But what the Lubicons are seeking to do rather than even
seek
what would be fair and equitable compensation in normal terms, the kinds of
terms
one might expect in a legal action from somebody who had been paralysed as a
result of an automobile accident and the like, is to establish an investment
fund
as part of this overall integrated scheme to...once again achieve social,
economic
and political self-sufficiency.  I don't know if that answers John but that's
the
best kind of answer I can provide.

John MacMillan:  I believe that's about everything I had in mind.  Is there
any
other member that would want to add to compensation while we're on it?

Jennifer Klimek:  Fred, I'd like to know, have you got any response from the
government as to any compensation?  What have they done with this since you've
given them the offer of $100 million?

Fred Lennarson:  When the Lubicons went into negotiations with the federal
government in December of 1988 there was a pre-agreed agenda, agreed in
writing,
with the Prime Minister's personal Chief of Staff Mr. Derek Burney. 
Compensation
was one of the items on the list.  A copy of this letter is provided in the
materials you have on the federal government's offer.  Because of the way that
the
negotiations proceeded that discussion on compensation got put off, did not
occur
on the dates that were agreed.  On, I think it was December 23rd, it was a
couple
of days before Christmas at any rate, they asked Bernard to come to Ottawa. 
He
met with then-federal Indian Affairs Minister Bill McKnight and then-Prime
Minister Mulroney's Chief of Staff Derek Burney and at that time McKnight and
Burney denied that there was any compensation owing, refused to discuss it. 
And
said simply if the Lubicons thought they had any compensation owing they
should go
to court.  They then proposed in their "take-it-or-leave-it" offer, their
verbal
presentation, that the "take-it-or-leave-it" offer was without prejudice to
the
Band's ability to go to the Canadian courts and seek compensation, that they
wanted to settle before and have the Band go to court afterwards.  But the
"take-
it-or-leave-it" offer, a copy of which you also have, explicitly prohibits
doing
just that.  There's a very complete release clause in there and it even goes
so
far at one point as to say that no verbal understandings have any force or
effect,
which sadly is the kind of experience we've had with these people more than
once. 
They do things like this all the time.

There have been discussions ever since and this has been a recurring
issue...with
the Province and the Feds both.  One of the proposals, for example, pertaining
not
only to this issue but to other issues which could not be resolved through
negotiations -- Premier Getty proposed that a 3-person independent tribunal be
established to resolve questions that couldn't be resolved through
negotiations,
compensation being one such issue.  The Lubicons agreed to that.  The proposal
was
that the Feds would appoint one person, Fulton would be the second, and the
two of
them would appoint a 3rd.  And the Lubicons agreed to that.  The Feds rejected
it,
refused to do it.  

What happened then was the Feds after a while made a counter-proposal that
instead
of a 3-person tribunal, one independent mutually agreed mediator be selected. 
The
Lubicons agreed to that.  The Feds put forward a number of names, four of
which
the Lubicons accepted, agreed to.  The minute the Lubicons accepted a name put
forward by the Feds, the Feds withdrew it and the person was no longer
acceptable
to the Feds.  The Feds accepted none of the Lubicon candidates, although they
included people like ex-Supreme Court Justices and heads of law schools and so
on. 
So that went on for six weeks or so and then collapsed without any resolution.

When negotiations between the Lubicons and province broke down, the  province
again proposed the 3-person tribunal, the Feds again rejected it and then
again
proposed a mutually agreed mediator.  No agreement was possible on that.  And
most
recently they have been talking about compensation with regard to only failure
of
the government to make the 25.4 square miles set aside in 1939 into a reserve
under Treaty 8, which of course the Lubicons didn't sign.  What that means at
the
bottom line is that the Lubicons would essentially give up the basis for
compensation before the question of compensation went to arbitration.  So
that's
what's on the table currently.  Bob appeared to have something he wanted to
add to
that so I'll pass the mike to him.

Bob Sachs:  Compensation has been more or less defined presently in three
areas: 
aboriginal rights and title; what is generally called treaty entitlement --
that
is to say, had the Band signed the treaty in 1899 or in 1939-40, what would
the
Band have been entitled to for that period of time, which Fred has already
spoken
to you about; and lastly a breach of fiduciary duty in their failure attempt
to
come to a treaty arrangement with the Lubicon as early as 1899 or again later
in
1939-40.  The federal government's present position is that we can once again
go
to mediation with them separate and apart from Alberta, but only with respect
to
the treaty entitlement aspect of a compensation claim...(change tapes)
...their
position is that the Lubicon people must essentially give up any claim to
aboriginal rights or aboriginal title.  I think it goes without saying that
that
sort of scheme of things is totally unacceptable.  

The Province -- their present position as we understand it is that there is no
such thing as aboriginal rights and there is no such thing as aboriginal
title,
that their oh-so-generous offer in their words of giving the Lubicon their own
land, giving them 95 square miles is sufficient in their view in all of the
circumstances of the case.  Needless to say, that's rather unacceptable. 
Essentially that's the position of the two governments.  

There were talks with respect to -- the Lubicon position as put forward to the
federal government in an attempt to try to get some sort of an agreement with
respect to the compensation issue, was to propose a combination
mediation/arbitration procedure.  That would be that -- without defining
necessarily what is aboriginal title or what are aboriginal rights because the
state of the law is such that they are presently undefined -- was that to take
to
first mediation, to attempt to come to a figure, a mediation procedure that
would
go over about a 3-month period of time.  If there would be no agreement then
it
would go on to an arbitration situation.  But essentially the proposal was
that a
mediator or arbitrator would not pass on the question of what is aboriginal
title. 
Is it a land right, is it a use right, all those sorts of questions would not
be
answered.  The question in the end result, the penultimate question for the
mediator would be what is a fair and equitable sum of money to compensate the
Lubicon for what has transpired over the last how many ever years, be it 1899
or
1939 to the present, given the scheme of what the Lubicons have endured and
what
they propose doing with their future.  That scenario was placed before them
approximately 3 1/2 weeks ago and their response to that so far has been much
the
same as it was in the past -- that is to say, if you want to mediate, give up
aboriginal rights and we once again proposed this arbitration/mediation scheme
and
there has been no answer.  That's where we stand now.

Michael Asch:  Just a question on the -- since you brought up the negotiation
issue and their status right now -- we would of course like the opportunity to
hear what the federal government has to say on these and other matters.  I
don't
feel that necessarily we need to be privileged to be the vehicle by which this
happens, so I guess it's more of a comment but maybe a question too.  I have
on
occasion seen a situation, even at a very close moment to a deadline, in which
negotiations on very, very delicate issues regarding self-government,
regarding
extinguishment, were carried on between the federal government and first
nations. 
Not only in public -- but they were in public -- but not only in public, but
carried on the radio on the native radio station throughout wherever it went
in
the NWT.  I'm just wondering whether having a public negotiation in which the
public might see what the various positions are and how they're developed and
how
the cases are put might be useful and certainly in other cases, there have
been
suggestions that maybe negotiations should be held in the communities
affected. 
I'm just wondering whether you have proposed any of these things or whether in
fact you think that they might be reasonable things to do and whether you've
proposed any of them and whether you've had any response?

Bernard Ominayak:  In the past -- for example in 1988 when we first set up
negotiations -- let's pretend negotiations took place -- at that point in time
they put all kinds of conditions and restrictions on our people.  One of the
things they wanted was that there would be a black-out on the media and that
negotiations would be behind closed doors.  Once you agree to something like
that
then you're confined.  So we're learning as we go through this process. 
That's
something that we'd never agree to again, where you have a news black-out
while
they had their PR guys sit right at the table right through the whole
negotiations, preparing and gearing up for failure.  Our guys knew the PR guy
was
there and asked what he was doing there and there was no explanation.  They
ended
up appointing him as some kind of assistant to the negotiators once it got out
in
the news.  But from our side of the table, we'd certainly welcome any kind of
opportunity that arose to have negotiations take place in the community and in
public.  We've got nothing to hide.  But that's not to say that the other
parties
would be prepared to do that.  At this point, I don't think they'd be prepared
to
do it.

I would like to make a few comments on the other issue that John brought out
in
regards to compensation.  It is true that in the last 2-3 years or so we've
been
able to work with some in the oil development in the areas of restoration, for
example.  Earlier on, in the early 80s, late 1979, there was a lot of problems
with the oil development and there was a lot of friction between the oil
people
out in the field and our people where their traplines and everything were
being
destroyed and we were taking them to court to try and put a stop to the
destruction before it got to the stage that it did.  So there was a lot of
friction.  We weren't able to deal with those guys, but over time we've dealt
with
one and then from there started going on to the others.  We've been able to
develop some kind of a working relationship involving line clean-up and
re-seeding
the areas that they've wrecked -- those kinds of things.  And that has turned
out
okay.  We've been able to do the kinds of jobs we took on for them and most of
them have been satisfied.  

Also in the area of fires, as John put it is it true that a lot of our guys
get
involved especially if there's a fire within our area.  But again there is a
lot
of problems with, for example, forestry and fish and wildlife.  Even though
our
guys try and do the work, the forestry, because of the political problems that
exist, we have problems within that set-up.  Our guys won't get picked up
unless
there's really an emergency situation and they're short of guys.  These kinds
of
little piddly stuff we're always faced with.  A lot of our traplines burnt up
very
early on because of one ranger that didn't allow our guys to use the equipment
that was there on site.  It was a very small fire at that point.  But they
wouldn't let our guys put it out.  So the fire went on for days and weeks and
burnt a lot of our trappers' equipment, traplines and so on.  There was
another
fire that took place close to our community where an oil company was burning
brush
along the right-of-way.  There again, our guys were prepared to put it out and
they weren't allowed to put that one out either because the guy that was head
of
the operation there had to wait for the forest ranger and that fire took off
too. 
So while on one hand we try and work with these guys to the best of our
ability in
certain areas, we don't believe in helping them to destroy our land and the
environment.  At the same time, we look at the areas where we may be of help
to
try and bring back some of it and those are the areas that we've concentrated
on. 
I just wanted to point out those few things in that area.  

I think Mr. Aitken would be familiar with the kinds of negotiations that take
place with governments...They pretend that they're negotiating while they're
gearing up to finish the other side off.  This is what we've been seeing all
through this process.  We would certainly welcome an opportunity to negotiate
in
public, for people to see what is taking place so we don't have to go back for
six
months or a year to try and correct all the misinformation that takes place
during
and after negotiations once they're broken down by governments.

Fred Lennarson:  I'd like to just make a quick add-on to that.  We've in fact
proposed open public negotiations to the government any number of times and
they've rejected them every time.  But not only have they done that, they have
asked -- going into the negotiations in '88 for example to work on the agenda,
federal negotiator Brian Malone asked for a personal one-on-one meeting with
me to
work on the agenda.  I was representing Bernard and he was representing the
Prime
Minister's Chief of Staff Derek Burney.  Malone brought his own public
relations
man to the thing.  And they put you in the position where if you refuse to
deal
with them because they've broken their own meeting condition -- he insisted on
that, it certainly wasn't my idea -- if you refuse to deal with them on that
basis, then maybe you miss an opportunity to get this thing resolved.  On the
other hand, you're sitting there with him having broken the condition that he
himself put forward and with a guy whose sole purpose is to try and figure out
creative ways to describe this thing in a way which makes it appear that the
government is being reasonable when in fact is isn't.  Most recently -- and
there
have been lots of examples of this -- but most recently last November Bernard
received a call from an Assistant to Member of Parliament Albert Cooper saying
that Albert Cooper was trying to arrange for a meeting with federal Indian
Affairs
Minister Tom Siddon when Mr. Siddon was in Edmonton.  Bernard was told that
Siddon
wanted the meeting private, confidential, one-on-one, behind closed doors,
media
not involved, media not informed.  And after all of these experiences Bernard
reluctantly agreed to that.  The meeting was to take place at 1:30, early
afternoon at any rate.  And at the noon hour we received a call from reporters
with the Edmonton Journal because Mr. Siddon had met with the Editorial Board
of
the Edmonton Journal that morning before he was to meet with Bernard.  He had
told
them he was going to be meeting with Bernard.  He had implied...that Bernard
had
requested the meeting.  He had told them that the "take-it-or-leave-it" offer
would not be changed except to be reduced to take into account the Woodland
Cree. 
And he said a number of other things and the reporters were calling and asking
for
comments.  So Bernard then goes to the meeting with Mr. Siddon and that's what
introduced the latest round.  And that's the history of this thing.  It's
very,
very difficult to try and deal with people who don't honor any of their own
conditions-- they insist upon these things and if you agree and honor those
conditions they break them.  And that's happened time after time, as I say
most
recently last November 1st at the meeting that kicked off this current round
of
supposed negotiations.

Bob Sachs:  In a classic sense, Michael, I think back to the late 19th century
when these original treaties were first discussed and the commissioners would
go
out in the communities and the discussions with respect to treaties were held
within the community.  Obviously that's changed a good deal in the last
90-some
odd years.  I think it goes also without saying -- Bernard has already
indicated
it -- that he would welcome both the federal government and the provincial
government to come before you to try and explain their position, if it's
explainable.  

The most recent indication about their willingness to conduct in public
scrutiny
negotiations with the Lubicon people occurred last Friday when I met the
Deputy
Minister of Indian Affairs, Harry Swain, here in Edmonton.  We are given to
understand that there are further attempts now to muzzle Bernard in speaking,
particularly to the media.  And I think it goes without saying that his
appearance
here before you is causing them great consternation.  Essentially on Friday
the
threat which I was to pass along to the Chief and the people was that if
Bernard
continued to indicate to the public what the Band's overall claim was about,
his
perception of how negotiations were going on, or any like talk to the media,
and I
would suggest parenthetically to this Commission, that they would in their
words,
"pull the plug" on this current round of negotiations.  I just moments ago
indicated to Bernard that I was to receive a phone call yesterday from Mr.
Swain
with respect to our response to this threat and in going through my messages
last
night and again this morning, I haven't received such a call.  So it may well
be
that the plug has been pulled.

Michael Asch:  I certainly appreciate and take note of what you've said, Fred,
and
what you've said, Bob.  I still would really like to hear what the federal
government has to say on it.   I'd like to -- it may seem kind of like a far-
fetched question and if you feel Bob that it is, please just say so -- but I'm
thinking back on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and in particular I'm thinking
about the way in which the Crown said discussions with respect to lands that
were
to be brought under -- I'm not exactly sure the verb to use -- but brought
into
conjunction, that's the safest word to use, with the Crown, were to be dealt
with. 
As I recall it, there was something about the manner in which such
negotiations
should take place.  So I'm asking you if you have any recollection about that? 
I
don't want to put you on the spot.

Bob Sachs:  I think you're right and I'm just trying to recall the exact words
that are used in that Royal Proclamation.  Interestingly enough, the latest
word
with respect to the Royal Proclamation is that which is contained in the
Gitskan
case and essentially what the case stands for, at least the way I perceive it,
is,
"Golly gee, British Columbia wasn't a part of Canada in 1763 so essentially
the
Royal Proclamation doesn't apply to all of these ancestral peoples in British
Columbia".  That is the same sort of response that you often get if you ever
mention the Royal Proclamation to the federal government.  Or the provincial
government for that matter.  "Well, Alberta didn't become a province until the
1900s."

Michael Asch:  Let me just try to put it a slightly different way.  I'd like
to
hear what the federal government would say about an interpretation that says
that
the Royal Proclamation says that whenever lands are to be exchanged, I don't
care
where we're talking about, there will be a public meeting where there will be
representatives of the Crown and representatives of the First Nation and it
shall
all be done in public.  Is that the basis, as far as I can see, for the entire
treaty making process on the Prairies, including Alberta -- whether we're on
the
Prairies or not is another subject, that's about the Senate -- but it seems to
me
that that sets the entire foundation for the way in which treaties were
supposed
to be addressed.  I would like to understand, since this is an adhesion to a
treaty that we're talking about -- and Fred I know you're likely to make a
comment
about that, I want to hear what they have to say about it with due respect. 
I'd
like to know what their point of view is as to why this is different.

Fred Lennarson:  I would too, Michael, I was just going to add that I have a
little up-date on what Bob said, and that is, Joe Clark is writing letters to
people, copies of which we have, in which he claims the Royal Proclamation has
been superseded by the Confederation Act 1867 and subsequent legislation and
all
of the principles of the Royal Proclamation in this regard have been negated
and
so on.  I can provide a copy of...

Michael Asch:  It's in the Constitution.

Fred Lennarson:  I know it's in the Constitution, I'm just giving you an
up-dated
bit of information and I can provide you with copies of the letter in which
Joe
Clark is making these statements.

Bob Sachs:  One additional important aspect of the Royal Proclamation aside
from
the fact that it should be conducted at an open and public meeting is that it
is
also conducted Nation-to-Nation.  And that's a very important aspect of
everything
that we're talking about.

Jacques Johnson:  I would like to have a question to Chief Bernard.  I'd like
to
come back to the nitty grittiness of numbers.  In dealing with a request, as I
read in your presentation, of $120 million -- that is $60 from the province
and
$60 from the feds -- I understand that it has been upped by $20 million
probably
because of the inflation rate.  That's my understanding anyway.  My question
is in
view of the fact that you are asking a certain amount for infrastructure and
community development, agricultural lands and so on, and this latter totals
about
$18 million -- supposing that the governments would grant you the $120 million
that you're asking in compensation and this would generate revenues of some
$4.5-5
million a year in revenue, revenue that would be used as I understand it, to
generate work, industry, it wouldn't be given to individuals -- could some of
that
money be applied for instance to the agricultural development or some of the
other
amenities that you're asking for in order to bring down somehow the total
numbers
that you are asking for?  And I am asking this not to question the right that
you
have of asking for compensation but in view of the fact that the government is
very hesitant, and I think that the public would see these numbers -- say $170
million or whatever -- as a very important sum of monies.  Would the Chief
tell us
if he would be flexible in any way to compromise these numbers somewhat?

Bernard Ominayak:  Father Johnson, when we speak of compromising I don't think
we
can go any further.  We've been compromising, compromising, and waiting,
waiting
for many, many years and trying to arrive at an agreement and also taking into
consideration the livelihood of all peoples that have been in our area -- for
example, the oil development.  During the blockade when we blocked those roads
and
stopped the oil development from coming in, they were all crying that their
kids
were going hungry and that we were taking bread and butter off their table. 
They
never once considered the fact that they were taking everything away from us. 
And
we, from our side, had tried to look at that whereby we knew that it was the
politics of this whole situation and greed that was prevailing, that the local
people weren't necessarily the people making the decisions.  But at the same
time
when the local people were kept away from their work for a couple of days they
were all crying that they were going to starve at the very moment.  The reason
I
bring that up is that when you speak of compromising, I don't think we've got
any
more ways to compromise.  And to your initial question as far as utilizing the
interest of any monies that may arise or we may receive through compensation,
there's been a lot of discussions in that regard as to what may be possible
and
how we may use that money.  The big thing is if we went into any of the
agricultural ideas that we have most of anything that we get by way of an
agreement would be on behalf of the community, while a lot of the individual
people wouldn't be getting directly any monies.  But if we were to get any
kind of
independent monies -- for example, the interest off of say $100 million, for
example -- we would be able to hopefully assist somebody that wanted to get on
his
own and try to get involved, whether it be road construction or maybe raising
cattle as a family.  These kinds of ideas then we would be looking at.  But
again,
that's just one set of the ideas that we have spoken of.  I think Fred's
pointed
out that we aren't getting into a per capita distribution because we keep our
eyes
and ears open as to what happens in the other Indian First Nations right
across
Canada.  We've seen where there've been per capita distributions and the
latest
one was -- to a degree -- when the Woodland got $1,000 to vote if they voted
right
-- that was quite a mess there for a week or so.  We certainly don't need
that.  I
don't know if I've satisfactorily answered your question.

I would also like to comment on Mr. Asch's concern.  It's not so much a
question,
but I really question whether if there's going to be any way that either
government is going to be as willing to appear before you as the Lubicon
people
have been.  I hope that they do but we get a lot of feedback from a lot of
different people who are saying that it's NDP or it's a lot of this and that. 
But
I think, while we speak and while the Lubicon people provided whatever
information
may be...(change tapes)...the federal government's proposals and so on.  At
least
you've got that before you and also to some degree the provincial government's
stance.  I guess that's all now.

Bob Sachs:  I just want to put these sort of numbers in perspective if you
look at
what most recently has happened in this province with money.  The province is
perfectly prepared -- and Fred may correct me with respect to these number,
but my
recollection with respect to Daishowa -- is that the provincial government has
loan guarantees to Daishowa in the $60 million range to prop up a business
which
hired, my understanding is, around 300 people from Peace River and additional
people from other parts of the country who have been brought in to work there.

We're talking about $167 million to restore a peoples' way of life and to
provide
for their future indefinitely for 500 people.  So you look at those numbers
and
you have to wonder where the priorities are with this government.  Of course,
last
week we see $566 million going down the toilet with NovaTel.  So that better
puts
the sort of numbers that we're talking about in perspective.

Jacques Johnson:  When we had the AlPac hearings I remember some figures that
were
thrown in terms of the provincial government's investment that per job
creation it
amounted to almost half a million dollars.  Those were figures that were
mentioned
there.

Fred Lennarson:  On this Daishowa thing, Bob's point I think is well taken
although the numbers are higher.  They're not loan guarantees.  They are
infrastructure grants.  But there's another point...Daishowa not only received
over $65 million in grants from the provincial government.  They received a
grant,
as I recall $9.5 million, from the Feds. The federal grant was given by the
Minister who was responsible for the Western Diversification Fund, Bill
McKnight,
who was the same time the Minister of Indian Affairs.  So while he had
constitutional responsibility as Minister of Indian Affairs specifically,
explicitly for looking out for the interests and the lands of Indian people,
he
was granting money to construct a $500 million pulp mill with leases to cut
down
the trees in an area that completely blanketed the entire traditional Lubicon
area
which is in dispute and before him for negotiation.  That's just to underscore
the
kind of problem that the Lubicon people face in working this thing through.

Michael Asch:  I appreciate greatly the fact that we have the information on
your
proposal and on the federal proposals, and I do think that we have enough
information to really begin to see what the differences between the proposals. 
It
would just be very helpful to us if we could hear what their points of view
are.

Jennifer Klimek:  Chief Ominayak, I'd just like to make one response to one
comment you made.  We certainly heard the same things saying we're appointed
by
the NDP and that.  I'd like to reconfirm that we are non-partisan and we
certainly
are not answerable to any political party and what we say here will be an
independent decision by us.  I just want to reaffirm that for you and the
audience
as well.

I have one last question for Bob.  Maybe he call help on this.  I notice in
some
of the proposals there's some reference to litigation matters and I'm just
wondering, are they still on-going and are they with respect to compensation
and
what's happening with those?  Are they in abeyance or on-going?

Bob Sachs:  Essentially they're in limbo.  There was a decision made by the
Lubicon people in August of 1988 that the litigation that was at that time
going
on was consuming so much time and effort and resources of the people involved
and
the Lubicon people, and the sorts of treatment that the Lubicon people have
received from the courts, a decision was made to withdraw from court action.
Bernard can give you a better perspective on how the Lubicon people view the
courts of this country.

Bernard Ominayak:  I'd just like to clarify what I said earlier.  It's not me
that's saying that this is heavily involved with the NDP.  To me, we've tried
to
work with people who are prepared to work with us, regardless of whatever
party or
whoever they are involved with.  Whether it be aboriginal people or
non-aboriginal
people.  We've always stated that in the past.  So to me whether it's the NDP
or
PC or Liberal -- if they're prepared to work with us then we don't consider
those
kinds of factors.  I also know that there's other parties involved and it's
not an
NDP Commission per se.  So with that, there's a lot of feedback on that from a
lot
of different people.

The other thing that maybe was not clarified was that I'm not saying that I
hope
that they don't appear.  What I'm saying is I certainly hope that they do so
you
guys get first-hand experience as to what kind of bull shit that we people go
through.  So I think for you people to clearly see that, you need to deal with
those kind of guys.  

Thank you.  I'll get Lennarson maybe just to speak a bit about the court
situation.

Fred Lennarson:  I'd like to also point out that I don't take this charge of
partisanship all that seriously, because the fact of the matter is when the
United
Nations, representatives of 18 different countries meeting in the context of
the
U.N. Human Rights Committee, find Canada in violation of the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights the government's position publicly, the
Federal Minister of Indian Affairs says publicly that the Lubicon complaint
was
found completely without substance.  When they appoint prominent Progressive
Conservative Statesman E. Davie Fulton to look into this and he concludes that
Lubicon rights have been abused, they fire him and say they don't want him
around
because he's biased in favor of the Lubicons.  So it's not only this
Commission
they look for reasons to dismiss.  It's anybody that takes a fair and
objective
look at this.  When the World Council of Churches looked at this question and
looked at over 10,000 pages of court documentation and sent a delegation of
prominent church leaders up to Little Buffalo in 1984 and concluded that what
was
going on up there could have genocidal consequences, they were dismissed.  So
there will always be a reason for these people to dismiss the truth which has
been
clearly seen by the United Nations, by the World Council of Churches, by E.
Davie
Fulton, by wave after wave of reporters who get into this thing not knowing
about
it and learn about it.  And in every case, the government takes the position
that
there's some reason that all of this is somehow not right.

On the question of the courts, there's a history here which I think needs to
be
presented to the Commission.  It's a history which I personally consider
shameful
and it's to some extent the reason why I'm sitting here before you today.  You
know that the Lubicons didn't sign treaty in 1899 and that they had their
first
meeting with the government in 1939 and have been trying to resolve this
outstanding jurisdictional dispute ever since.  

When the government of Peter Lougheed came to power, as part of his
development
plans he started building a road into this territory.  The Lubicons and six
other
isolated aboriginal societies back in this hinterland area, collectively
called
the isolated communities, attempted to initiate discussions with the federal
government to try and resolve this outstanding jurisdictional dispute.  They
knew
that with that road outsiders would be coming into their area and the area
would
be opened up for development and they wanted to get their rights defined. 
They
wanted to get this matter resolved.  Both levels of government refused to talk
to
them and said they were merely squatters on provincial Crown land with no
rights. 
They said this in court.  They said that the Lubicon people don't even have
rights
to the homes, that their homes are merely "unauthorized improvements to Crown
land", and they've literally threatened to bulldoze these homes out from under
the
Lubicon people if the Lubicon people didn't accept provincial government
jurisdiction.

In the middle 70s, on legal advice and with the road being built, the Lubicons
and
the other isolated communities sought the advice of then Indian Association
President Harold Cardinal.  He involved legal counsel who advised the Lubicons
and
these other communities to file a caveat under provincial law putting the
parties
on notice that title to the land was contested.  Such a caveat had no force in
law
but it is just simply notice that title to the land is contested.  It was
notice
to potential developers to be cautious, be aware.  Of course the strategy was
to
try and bring this thing to a resolution.  

The government refused to accept and file the caveat as provincial law at the
time
provided.  The Indians therefore went to court.  They asked the courts to
order
the government to obey provincial law.  The provincial government asked for a
postponement of the hearing of this case until a similar case in the
Territories
called the Paulette case was decided.  The Paulette case went against the
aboriginal people in the Territories but the judgement read, "Had the law been
written in the Territories as it was in Alberta and Saskatchewan the court
would
have found for the Indians and ordered the government to file the caveat". 
The
Alberta Provincial Government, under Peter Lougheed, went back to court, asked
for
another postponement during which time they rewrote the law and made the re-
written law retroactive to before the time the Indians sought to file the
caveat. 
The case was then dismissed as no longer having any basis in law.  That was
the
first round before the Canadian courts.

The road came in in 1978-79.  Development companies came in by the dozens. 
Between '79-'82 over 400 oil wells were drilled within a 15 mile radius of the
community.  Traplines were bulldozed.  Edward here would set his traps, spend
all
week doing it and they'd be bulldozed.  He'd go out and mark his traps with
these
red plastic markers and they'd be bulldozed and the sticks with the red
plastic on
them marking his traps would be used as road markers for the new roads.  We
would
find bulldozers who'd bulldoze a trapline and then back up several miles and
then
go bulldoze another trapline.  We had a provincial probation officer operating
out
of Peace River call us in distress and tell us that parolees under his charge
had
been instructed to bulldoze Lubicon traplines.  He described it as almost a
competition.  We sought to get an affidavit signed by this man but he in the
meantime he had told his boss what he thought about it and he was transferred
out
of there and nothing came of it.  But this has all been part of the history.

In 1980 the Lubicons went to the federal court -- because under the Canadian
constitution aboriginal land rights are a matter of exclusive federal
government
jurisdiction -- and asked the court to affirm that the Lubicons own this land,
that they retain aboriginal title to this land.  They'd never ceded it in any
legally or historically way.  Or to provide them with substantial compensation
if
their land rights had somehow been taken from them.  The governments and the
oil
companies argued procedurally, as they typically do.  They don't argue the
substance of the matter, they argue procedurally because then they can tie you
up
in court forever and they've got lawyers on payroll that can do this and they
know
damn well that these little aboriginal societies can't survive for ten years
in
these big complicated, expensive legal actions.  They argued that the Lubicons
were before the wrong court.  The federal court agreed, at least as with
regard to
the province and the private oil companies.  They said that the Lubicons could
sue
the federal government and PetroCanada in the federal court but they had to
sue
the province and the oil companies in the provincial court.

So the Lubicons pursued parallel legal actions: one in the provincial court
against the province and the private oil companies; and one in the federal
court
against the federal government and Petro Canada.  But lawyers for all sides
said
that this thing would take at least 10 years to adjudicate and millions of
dollars
which the Lubicon people didn't have.  And in the meantime, which we indicated
yesterday, moose kill had gone from 219 in 1979 to 110 in '81 to 37 in '82, to
19
in '83.  In 1981 when they first started administering welfare in their
community
fewer then 10% were on welfare, by 1983 that number had skyrocketed to more
than
90%.  Income from trapping, with an average of a little more than $5,000 per
trapper when this started in '79, by 1983 had dropped to under $400, and that
was
for master trappers, for people like Edward Laboucan sitting behind me.  

It was thus clear that the Lubicons would not survive 10 years before the
courts
on this thing.  So they filed an interlocutory injunction before the
provincial
court.  An interlocutory injunction is an emergency action.  It asks the court
to
hear this thing right away because there are interests at stake which are in
jeopardy and which will not survive the normal legal process.  The oil
companies
and the province again argued procedurally.  They argued first that the court
shouldn't even hear the case because, they said, the Crown is immune from
injunctive relief.  You couldn't sue them.  They argued secondly that the oil
companies are merely agents of the Crown in extraction of the resources and
therefore they're covered by Crown immunity and you can't sue them either. 
They
said that the court shouldn't even hear the case because the damages weren't
irreparable, the trees would grow back.  They said even if the damages were
irreparable the court shouldn't hear the case because the damages could be
compensated in money.  Now on the Lubicon side of the claim, of course, we're
talking about still born babies and suicides and a lot of things which from
the
Lubicon point of view aren't reparable by any amount of money.  They said even
if
the damages were irreparable and couldn't be compensated in money the court
still
shouldn't hear the case because of a legal principle called the "balance of
convenience", which is basically that the rest of Canadian society has such a
great stake in development of these lands that Lubicon land rights shouldn't
be
allowed to interfere.  And finally they argued that the court shouldn't even
hear
the case because if the Lubicons are ever unable to prove they own the land
the
government and the oil companies would have lost so much money in the interim
that
the Lubicons would never be able to pay them back for the money that they
lost.

The judge hearing this case pondered that question for a full three months,
from
the fall through the winter development season.  In the north, as some of you
know, development activity in newer areas occurs in winter months when the
ground
is frozen and you can get into this country.  So while the judge thought about
it
the oil companies proceeded to do a fair amount of what the Lubicons were
seeking
to enjoin.  At the end of this time he decided that the case could go ahead
but he
put off hearing it until the next fall.  All the evidence was by way of sworn
affidavits.  The Lubicons submitted affidavits of wildlife biologists,
anthropologists, environmentalists and their own elders on what was happening
to
their traditional way of life and their lands.  The provincial government and
the
oil companies submitted no evidence at all on what was happening to the
traditional way of life.  They simply argued that it was the 20th century and
any
traditional way of life which may have existed was long since gone; therefore
there was nothing left to protect -- where on the other hand the province and
the
oil companies would lose a lot of money if an injunction were granted.

The provincial judge hearing this case agreed and declined to grant the
injunction.  His name's Gregory Forsyth.  Before he was a provincial judge he
was
the head lawyer for the Nova Corporation.  The Nova Corporation's a large
petrochemical conglomerate in Alberta, among other things at that point owning
controlling shares in Husky Oil which was a major player in the Lubicon
territory. 


This case was appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal where the then Chief
Justice
of the Alberta Court of Appeal, a man named McGillivrary, put himself at the
end
of a three man panel to hear this case.  Before it came to court he died, but
he
put himself at the end of a three man panel to hear this case.  Before he was
a
provincial court judge he was the family lawyer for Peter Lougheed.  He was
the
guy that gave Peter Lougheed his first job in the Calgary law firm of
McGillivray,
Fennerty and Robertson.  Jack Robertson is the head oil company lawyer on the
case.  The Alberta Court of Appeal declined to hear the case finding that the
Lubicons didn't need an injunction because they said if the Lubicons can ever
prove that they own the land, they would be compensated in such a great amount
that they would be able to, in the worlds of the judgement, "restore the
wilderness with money damages".  "Restore the wilderness with money damages"
--
we're talking about still born babies, tuberculosis epidemics, suicides and so
on.

This case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada where the presiding
judge, a man named Estey declined to hear the case, provided no explanation
why. 
There was then a subsequent decision involving a similar fact situation at
Meares
Island in B.C. where an injunction was in fact granted so it looked like we
had
two conflicting decisions at the provincial level.  The Lubicon injunction
application was therefore appealed a second time and the Supreme Court
declined to
hear it a second time.  Estey, before he was a Supreme Court judge, was also
an
oil company lawyer.  He has since resigned from the bench and been appointed
to
the Board of the Nova Corporation.

Now in the meantime the two other actions -- the main aboriginal actions were
proceeding.  In 1986 there was a case out of Newfoundland called the Joe case
which found basically that you can't sue the federal government in federal
court
over aboriginal land rights within provincial boundaries because it involves
provincial land rights.  That rendered moot the Lubicons' federal action, the
action in the federal court against the federal government and PetroCanada. 
So
the Lubicons moved to add the federal government and PetroCanada to the
Provincial
action.  Those were the only two options -- you either go to the federal court
or
the provincial court.  The federal government argued that the provincial court
doesn't have jurisdiction over them with regard to these matters for a number
of
reasons.  But at any rate that was basically their argument.  And the judge
agreed.  His name is Moore.  He's the guy that appointed Forsyth to hear the
first
case and not too much later, when the Lubicons had up their blockades in
desperation trying to protect what little they had left, Moore granted the
government an expartite injunction to take down the barricades.  It took him
about
2 minutes behind closed doors.  They didn't even let the Lubicons know they
were
doing it.  At any rate, when the Lubicons asserted jurisdiction in October of
'88
as a result of this history, and as a result of these decisions, there was not
a
single court in Canada that was even prepared to hear a legal action on the
part
of the Lubicon people against the federal government of Canada even though
under
the Canadian constitution aboriginal lands and aboriginal people are the
exclusive
jurisdiction of the federal government.

I'll add only -- and there's a lot more than can be said about this -- but
I'll
add only that the Lubicons in 1984, facing this kind of experience with
Canadian
politicians and Canadian courts both, appealed to the U.N. Human Rights
Committee. 
Canada's first response was to argue that the Human Rights Committee should
not
hear this case because the Lubicons had not exhausted all domestic recourse,
that
they first had to go through the courts in Canada.  And they argued other
things
which people need to know.  These decisions should be read for people to know
how
the government of Canada is representing their position internationally.  The
Lubicons said they were being denied self-determination as a people in their
complaint.  Canada responded that the Lubicons are not a people, they are
"merely
members of a thinly scattered minority group living in the midst of a more
numerous population grouping".  That's the wording of the Canadian government
submission to the international community on aboriginal people in Canada.  At
any
rate, after hearing arguments from both sides for a period of 3 years, the
representatives of 18 separate independent countries serving on the UN Human
Rights Committee concluded that the Lubicons could not achieve effective legal
or
political recourse in Canada.  That decision's a part of the record.  It's not
only the Lubicon people who have concluded that they were not receiving any
consideration by the Canadian courts, but the international community as well.

Bernard Ominayak:  Fred, could you let the Commission know about the federal
government's response to that particular U.N. decision.

Jennifer Klimek:  Maybe we should take a short break and address that after,
if
it's okay.  We'll come back at about quarter after 11.

Sandy Day:  Our goal as a Commission is to try and get negotiations with the
government going again.  I think it's important to try to brainstorm ways of
making this happen.  You certainly seem to be the experts on what hasn't
worked,
but I think it's also important to try to have a vision of how to make it
work. 
One thought on the compensation settlement -- if the government looked at it
as an
investment in future savings, by settling now there could be significant
savings
for the government in money ow being spent to help support your people through
welfare.  My question is, has the program cost of this been done?

Bernard Ominayak:  I don't know if I clearly understand your question, but it
seems to be that you're suggesting that -- how much would it be saving the
government by way of welfare if they were to settle with us?

Sandy Day:  That's correct.

Bernard Ominayak:  No, we haven't really looked at it from that angle.  I
certainly can't speak for the government as to what they may be thinking.  But
I
think as we present the problems as we see them and through our experience in
trying to deal with governments, we can only present you with the facts
through
our experience at this point.  I certainly hope that the governments will be
able
to do likewise, arguing their stance as to why they aren't prepared to come to
a
fair and just settlement with our people.  

As we look back a lot of times through the process that we've gone through and
wonder why, like many people, as to why this is going on and has gone on for a
long time, we certainly don't have the answer for that.  But it seems like the
government is more interested in the valuable resources that our lands
contain,
and that's where their focus has been.  At the same time they don't like to
see
Native people stand up and fight back.  That's one of the things that they
would
like to defeat us rather than settle with us, because then they figure they're
losing face.  I don't think, as a person I don't think that's a viable reason
for
not settling.  But I guess people are different.  

In so far as your question, we really haven't looked at that angle as to what
kind
of monies is actually spent by way of welfare and if there would be any kind
of
saving on the part of the government.  But when we're talking welfare, we're
certainly talking about a taxpayer's dollar.  While on the other hand, we're
talking about resources and monies that are rightfully ours and we're asking
for a
very small percentage of what monies have been extracted by way of our
resources,
to come back to the people to try and build a different lifestyle altogether
from
what we're accustomed to.  

To a large degree, you know, we hear of inherent rights and so on through a
lot of
these constitutional discussions that have taken place between the Native
peoples
and the federal government and also to a degree with the Premiers of Canada. 
I
think in a lot of these instances -- for example with the Lubicon people, I
think
we were giving up a certain way of life.  There must be a reason why the
Creator
put us in the area that we're in.  So I guess from that perspective the onus
is on
us to try and protect the earth, the environment and the wildlife as much as
possible.  

There are different religions and we certainly try and retain ours.  I think
there
was a question yesterday in so far as the spiritual connection.  It's
certainly
there.  There's a lot of fundamentalists groups around that believe all you
have
to do is get on your knees and the Creator will look after everything.  We
certainly don't have that attitude.  

I guess we've learned through experience from that aspect of it too that the
onus
is on us to try and protect as much as possible.  But when you have people who
are
more interested in our resources, who are greedy and want to take everything
and
leave nothing behind, this is the kind of problem that we face, that the
Lubicon
people face, where everything is destroyed and there's nothing left.  I don't
think the world in general can any longer just continue destroying everything
and
hope to have something left.  I guess that's a little out of context, but to
try
and bring everything into perspective, it certainly should be a concern for
all
peoples, not only aboriginal peoples, with the kind of destruction that's
taking
place.  We certainly see the kinds of actions and destruction that takes place
when you have greed prevail, whether it be people or the land or the
environment
or the wildlife -- that's exactly what our people have faced for the last
12-15
years.

Fred Lennarson:  I have some numbers on that, not up to date numbers, but at
the
time of the interlocutory injunction we looked at this question, we went in
and we
tried to put numbers to the traditional economy -- the value of the wild hay
that
was cut for the horses, the berries, the game, the meat that was provided and
so
on.  We came up with an economic base worth about $700,000 a year.  That
traditional economy then was replaced by another economy which the provincial
government said was generating $500 million a year primarily in oil revenues,
but
with the benefits of course going to completely different people.  What
happened
to the indigenous population at that time, when 90% of the population was
forced
onto welfare, is that the welfare roll on a monthly basis was in excess of
$30,000
a month.  So that kind of dislocation occurred as a result of moving in and
destroying the traditional hunting, trapping and food-gathering economy and
with
the gas and oil development and forcing the indigenous population onto
welfare. 
That is to me just a very small part, the dollar value of it, because as we've
indicated more than one -- I don't know how you value in dollars the life of a
child that's born dead and families that are destroyed and all the rest of it.

Those are costs which I don't think can be estimated in dollars whatever the
learned Justices of the Alberta Court of Appeal may think.

Sandy Day:  Thank you.  Leading from that Bernard, your discussion with the
wildlife  -- yesterday you did touch on it briefly as well -- about your role
in
wildlife management.  I'd kind of like to hear a bit more about what your
hopes
are, how it is set up, and to me it seems to imperative that your peoples'
wisdom
and knowledge be shared if possible with others, because you certainly do have
expertise in this area.  I'd kind of like to hear what is happening in that
area
or how you'd like to see it happen.

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess a lot is dependent upon what kind of an agreement
we
can get in place, more with the provincial government at this point in regards
to
conservation or wildlife in general over our traditional territory.  And
that's a
very small portion when you look at northern Alberta.  I think if more people
were
able to get something by way of substantial say as to what transpired
throughout
northern Alberta, I think we would do a whole lot better.  But when you're
dealing
with a smaller area, at least it's an effort to try and preserve what is left. 
As
I outlined yesterday, one of the ideas that we're looking at is some years the
moose may be down across northern Alberta, and this is where these kinds of
ideas
would really work, if say, all peoples were able to not hunt maybe for a year
or
two to try and bring back that certain species, for example, moose is the one
I'm
talking about.  Because right now it doesn't work for our people to try and
hold
back from hunting when everybody else comes in in the fall and takes whatever
we're trying to save.  For example, last fall Fish and Wildlife out of Peace
River
were having advertisements through the local radio station out of Peace River
suggesting that people from the outside come and hunt in our area because
that's
where all the moose were.  They knew better than that.  But when politics
interferes with everything, then you get all kinds of problems.  

The other thing that was also looked at is when, if there is logging taking
place
then there are certain areas where certain wildlife raise their young ones. 
So
we'd like to try and preserve those for as long as possible so we have that
species continues to survive within that area.  Also, the way they log around
creeks, lakes, and all these things -- they're all factors that have to be
considered when logging does take place.  Right now supposedly the Fish and
Wildlife and the Forestry are supposed to be looking at that, but anytime you
get
away from the road or the main access of any of these right-of-ways and
there's
not very many people that are going to be seeing it, all the regulations seem
to
disappear.  I think in Saskatchewan where I was over the weekend where they
have a
blockade, they're in the same predicament where we are where there's clear-cut
logging taking place.  Along the road you don't see any of the clear-cut
logging
but the minute you get behind the scenes there's a hell of a mess back in
there. 
That holds true in a lot of these things.  I think that's the same problem we
faced with the oil development.  It seems like the bigger the oil company, the
less regulations there are, if there were ever any in the first place. 
Supposedly
there are, but they're not followed.  These are a lot of things -- for
example,
around those pump jacks, around those battery stations where there's a lot of
oil
spilled and it gets into the water stream and that stuff.  The ducks get it in
their feathers and then they can't fly.  All the drilling mud and stuff, the
toxins that are being used in the drilling, the bears, the coyotes get into
that
stuff and their fur starts falling off and it gets into their system and eats
out
their insides.  So all these things have to be looked at any time any kind of
development is going to take place in order to try and preserve.

Anyway, when we were trying to negotiate a committee that our people would
have a
full participation on to manage these things, these are the kinds of things
that
we were looking at.  Now whether we get to the stage where we're able to pull
that
off or not is still a question that remains to be answered.

Fred Lennarson:  I'd like to supplement with figures that again I'm not right
on
top of because it's been several years since we did the exercise.  But several
years ago when we looked at the E.R.C.B., the Energy Resources Conservation
Board,
which approves these projects, these energy related projects, in Alberta, in
northern Alberta in particular -- they were granting something like 12,000
licenses year as I recall, and doing something like 2-3,000 inspections.  Now
it
doesn't take very long at the rate of 2,000 inspections and 12,000 licenses a
year
before there are all kinds of sites which never get inspected at all.  I can
provide those numbers if you want them.  We have the documents on them.

Menno Wiebe:  Bernard, there must be a reason for us being here, or for the
Creator putting us here, if I can quote your earlier statement.  I would think
the
thinking behind that statement is expressed widely by aboriginal groups
elsewhere
across Canada and other parts of the Americas and the world.  But a concept
that
isn't understood very well when it comes to seeing the land as commodities
only or
trees and sub-surface things as resources for dollar-making in the world that
is
increasingly materialistic and therefore also destructive.  Yesterday we asked
a
question about the connections to the earth and the water and recognized the
presence of other representatives from the Lubicon Band here.  So we're
wondering
if maybe one of your Elders or more would be willing to speak to this matter
of
being in your area and its meaning?  Life after all is not only getting money
and
spending it, but also the meaning of being where you are.  We did obtain a
translator in the person of Adrian Houle who is with us and who thinks he can
handle Lubicon Cree, if that's needed.  So if this would seem in place, in no
way
to undermine the authority that has been invested in you as chief spokesperson
but
also recognizing that much of your decision-making happens in community. 
We've
seen you consult with the Elders on all the big issues.  If it would be in
place
to have someone speak out on the meaning of living there, the spiritual
connection, we would appreciate that.  I think we would like to leave that up
to
you to designate who you want or leave it open.

Jennifer Klimek:  I'd just like to make one comment.  As you can see, some
donuts
had arrived.  We had planned on going through lunch so you could be on your
way
rather than taking a break so if any of you want to take a break and just go
get
something, by all means just help yourself, as well as anyone in the audience.

Bernard Ominayak:  Menno, I certainly don't have any concern in regards to any
undermining.  Now if you were Mr. Siddon, well I certainly wouldn't take that
at
face value.  Nevertheless, I certainly will ask the Elders if one of them are
prepared to speak and I thank Mr. Houle for making himself available to
translate
if required.  So maybe if after people have their donut then we can get on
with
that.

Menno Wiebe:  While we're waiting for people to get in place I wonder if it
would
be in order to recognize the presence of Linda Winski who's on the Aboriginal
Rights Coalition from Edmonton.  She's present here.  Also Raymond Yakolava
from
Norman Wells who represents the Dene.  The Dene have interests in what's going
on
over here.  He's been kind of quiet.  Maybe he's out for the moment.  Film
maker
and party to the Dene negotiations.

Adrian Houle:  Good morning everyone, my name is Adrian Houle.  I'm from the
Saddle Lake Band.  My Cree may be just a bit different, because regionally we
speak each our own dialects.  I'm more or less from right at the beginning of
the
tree line I guess, so I may sound a little bit more like a Prairie Cree.  But
in
the meantime, I want to thank everyone for inviting me here and I'm certainly
glad
to have had this opportunity now to meet the Lubicons.  I've heard a lot about
them and what their dilemma is.  To participate first-hand at this point, I'm
certainly eager to do that.  (Next statement in Cree)

Edward Laboucan:  (In Cree)

Adrian Houle:  I'm to translate now what Mr. Edward Laboucan has spoken of. 
He
mentions the fact that sometime a long time ago, when people first arrived at
Lubicon, speaking of themselves, everything was in harmony, everything was
nice
there.  There was lots of forests, lots of animals, lots of resources for
them. 
It went on that way for a long time.  But eventually they started to see a lot
of
their traplines and their forests disappear, mostly because of developers
coming
into the region.  These developers had absolutely no regard for their
existence
there in that region.  There would be trucks travelling night and day.  Their
traplines would be bulldozed.  Their livelihood was being absolutely
disregarded. 
And what they're asking for at this point is some form of compensation for all
the
general damage that's been going on since the existence of the developers in
that
area.

Edward Laboucan:  (In Cree)

Adrian Houle:  He also mentions the fact that the wardens that come out about
the
wildlife in that country, they want to know what animals that they kill and
they
have to be accounted for, and they're only allowed to kill 1 moose, 1 lynx and
1
fisher is all they're allowed to kill.

Edward Laboucan:  (In Cree)

Adrian Houle:  There also has to be a registered animal with an ear tag on it
before it can be sold.

Edward Laboucan:  (In Cree)

Adrian Houle:  The way he understands that this land to be is they are the
sole
owners of this land because their fathers and their forefathers were there
before
them.  But now it looks as though they have absolutely no rights on those
lands
because of the way they're being treated.  Everything has to be accounted for.

Their rights seem to be diminishing as time goes on.  (change tapes)

Edward Laboucan:  (In Cree)

Adrian Houle:  He also mentions the fact they should be compensated for all
that
they've lost in general damages, because the resources of the land that had
been
passed on to them have been stripped and they have nothing to pass on to their
children, their grandchildren for future livelihood.  He feels that they
should be
helped in the form of money, in the form of land, compensation and some sort
of
support systems that will help them in their livelihood and that they can pass
on
to their children.

Edward Laboucan:  (In Cree)

Adrian Houle:  He's very thankful today for being a participant in this
meeting...and thanks you all for listening.

Jennifer Klimek:  Thank you very much.  I'd like to hand it down to Don now. 
He'd
like to ask a few questions about the Treaty 8 and some concerns you may have
about that.  We'd also like to thank Adrian for his assistance.  Thank you
very
much.

Don Aitken:  First of all I'd like to thank the Lubicon Lake Band for the very
informative morning that we've had.  Yesterday we touched on a number of
issues
but today I think we've really gotten in a lot deeper and I think it really is
educational for myself and I'm sure for other members of the Commission.  

When I hear your stories and I hear the kind of uphill fight that you've been
involved in it reminds me very much, of course, of the labour movement where
we
have a situation where our biggest struggle is to first of all be recognized
and
to be recognized as a legitimate part of society.  And I think that is the
real
struggle that the workers and the aboriginal people in this country are
fighting,
because I think there are a whole lot of people who would like to marginalize
other people so that they can continue their power over them.  I think another
example of what we're hearing today to try to discredit the Commission by
saying
that it's a political vehicle -- I think it's important to recognize that
government has a job to govern, and governance is their job and it's not to
try to
marginalize people or to find reasons, another excuse, why they won't do their
job.  I think we've heard certainly about the court cases and the situation
that
has just compounded things and they'll find every reason not to accomplish it. 
I
guess the concerns that I have as a voter in this country are that we should
have
governments that represent people and not necessarily people that consider
some a
legitimate part of society and not others.

I'd like to just ask you if you see yourself as being part and parcel or
included
in any way in Treaty 8?  Do you see yourself as being -- or would you wish to
be? 
I guess that would be the first question that I'd like to ask and then I have
one
or two follow-up from that.

Bernard Ominayak:  I don't know.  We've really never looked at it from that
perspective per se.  I guess what is more important to us at this point in
time is
to be able to get an agreement in place that would enable our people to start
building some kind of a viable future for our younger generations.  Now
whether we
can do that under Treaty 8 or whatever kind of a treaty or agreement that we
may
be able to make -- but in so far as Treaty 8 is concerned, we are confined in
many
ways to that treaty not because we're a party to it but, because, for example
as I
pointed out yesterday, within Treaty 8 there was 128 acres allotted per person
and
we had to kind of more or less go under those guidelines even though land is
probably the most important thing in this fight.  We've survived off those
lands
for many, many generations.  We would certainly like to keep as much of it as
possible.  But then we're having enough of a big problem in trying to obtain
what...lands are available under Treaty 8, we had to try and keep in line with
what was committed under Treaty 8.  For example, the other one was the surface
and
sub-surface rights.  We looked at that.  The treaty provides for full surface
rights and sub-surface rights under the reserve lands and there are 16 sq.
miles
of the lands that were set aside in 1988 don't include sub-surface rights.

Don Aitken:  Thank you.  I guess just one other question in respect to any
settlement that you would arrive at.  I'm sure it seems rather, I'm sure it is
frustrating to try and arrive at a settlement and yet it appears that one is
in
reach when we talk about what it takes to resolve it.  Would you see this as
one
of the major concerns of the governments involved is that this would be seen
as
precedent-setting and therefore they feel that if there was a resolve here
that it
would just snowball across the country and that they would have all kinds of
other
problems.  I guess it's so hard for so many people to understand why there
isn't
justice being done here, if there is another reason why it's not being done
besides the fact that they just wouldn't want to be saddled with a precedent-
setting event that would snowball for them.  Perhaps you could just talk a
little
bit about that?

Bernard Ominayak:  Again, I certainly can't speak on behalf of the governments
as
to why they are not prepared to settle with the Lubicon people at this point
in
time.  As we look across Canada and also the various agreements that have been
made by Canada and the many different provinces through any of these land
issues
or land matters, I think anybody that looks at them closely, they all vary to
some
degree because of that concern that you speak of -- creating precedents in the
different settlements.  They try to keep them somewhat different from another
or
in situations, for example, like with the Woodland Cree there.  I'm sure
they'd
like to get all Woodland agreements right across Canada.  But not everybody's
going to be prepared to sell their people as happened in the Woodland.  So
there's
some differences...The agreements that have been made vary.  

The other factor in a lot of these is that ...not all of them have so much
available resources.  So that's another factor.  From our point of view, I
guess
these are the bigger ones.  Another thing too that I pointed out earlier is
that
we've tried to keep our heads up and keep fighting for what we believe is
rightfully ours for as long as possible.  That's another thing that they don't
like, Native people standing up to them.  They look at us as the enemy that
has to
be defeated.  I guess that's somewhat in line with what you have stated -- you
know, if we were to succeed then other people may say, "Hey, these guys stood
up." 
And then other people would stand up and that may very well have a snowball
effect.  

But at the same time, even though things may vary somewhat, you see a lot of
different aboriginal peoples...are forced into situations where they don't
have
any option but to take a stand, like us in 1988.  Our backs were up against
the
wall, so we had to say, "Okay, enough is enough."  We were forced to do that. 
We
tried the courts.  We tried the political aspect of it and that didn't work. 
So
we had to do what was left and that was to try and protect our homelands the
only
way we could.  But there again, you know, they have the army, they have the
police
who are more than willing to shoot aboriginal people.  So these are all
factors
that come into play when you're forced into these situations.  

It's gotten to a point where a lot of people, especially myself, if we are to
continue this battle and if we have to again go back to the ground, there's a
serious question that I have to deal with again.  And that is if I'm prepared
to
put my life on the line, because it's gotten to that point where we either
have to
be prepared to die in trying to protect my peoples' interests and my
children's
interests.  And if I'm not prepared to do that then there's no point for me to
go
stand and blockade.  We saw what happened last time.  These guys were more
than
willing, very anxious to shoot our people.  And that's something that I don't
think anybody can just walk away from, if you're prepared to stop them.  So
you
then, there's really serious consequences that we have to deal with in these
situations.  

They keep us apart too, on purpose, like in the Northwest Territories. 
They're
fighting a battle over there.  They're fighting battles in Saskatchewan. 
They're
fighting battles in Alberta.  But they try and keep us apart defining and re-
defining the kinds of rights that we may be pursuing.  They try and put us in
little boxes to keep us apart.  At this point, we don't fit into any of the
little
boxes that the federal government has for any kind of claim.  And that's one
of
the things that they've been telling us, because as long as you don't fit into
a
box, then supposedly you're not entitled to any kind of funding that's
available. 
When you're pursuing certain claims then they will provide some kind of
funding. 
But if you don't fit into a box, you don't qualify.  There's a lot of
different
things that come into play when we look at what kind of claim you make -- for
example, what kind of treaty may be in the area.  So all of these are factors.

Fred Lennarson:  I'd like to just make a comment on that too if I may.  I
don't
think that they worry about legal precedents because I don't think they have
any
respect for the rule of law.  What they worry about is a political precedent
as
Bernard suggests.  If they manage to negotiate a settlement like the Woodland
Cree, they hire the lawyer, they pay the lawyer, the lawyer negotiates the
agreement with them and then they pay people $1,000 per family member to
accept
the agreement, that's not a very good precedent for other aboriginal
societies. 
But they try and use it as a precedent.  On the other hand, if there is a
better
settlement, they never consider that a precedent.  Every one of these
struggles is
a struggle on the part of the government to delimit  the rights involved to
the
extent possible, and precedent is not of concern to them except to the extent
that
they can use it.  If there's a bad settlement they try and use it as a
precedent. 
If there's a settlement that they worry about like the James Bay settlement,
then
they have said to us in negotiations I don't know how many times, there will
never
be another James Bay settlement.  Now the James Bay settlement is
controversial. 
Some people think it's good and some people think it's not.  But from the
government's point of view there's no question in my mind, they see the James
Bay
settlement as providing the James Bay people with an ability as a society to
continue to fight for their rights.  And when they say there will never be
another
James Bay settlement, what they mean by that in terms of objectives is they
don't
want aboriginal societies to continue to be able to assert their rights in
Canadian society.  They want Woodland Cree settlements.

I will close by making one comment.  There's a guy named Ken Colby who started
out
as a CBC stand-up journalist and was then hired by the oil companies and did
their
advertising for them for a while trading on his earlier journalistic career,
and
then the federal government hired him to be the official Lubicon spokesman. 
For a
long time he was the only one who was authorized to speak on behalf of the
government regarding the Lubicon situation.  If you called the Minister of
Indian
Affairs in Ottawa you'd be referred to this PR guy in Calgary as the official
Lubicon spokesman.  Colby said something once which may have been the only
truthful thing he ever said in his life or at least the only thing that I
found
credible.  He said, "We could sign a check tomorrow for $170 million and
settle
it.  It would be easy to do.  But what kind of precedent would we set?  If we
did
that, what kind of message would be sending?  We'd be sending a message to all
of
the aboriginal societies in Canada that you shouldn't even sit down and talk
to
the government until you've embarrassed us internationally, blockaded roads,
appealed to the United Nations, boycotted the Olympics and so on."  Obviously,
the
Lubicons did absolutely none of those things until their they were put in a
position where they were given no alternatives.  It isn't as though they
started
out doing that.  They started out trying to talk to the government about
resolving
the thing, and as they were increasingly put to the wall, they fought back as
best
they could.  But that's the one truthful thing Ken Colby said, and I think it
provides great insight into the way the government perceives these things. 
"What
kind of precedent would we be setting if we did it and what kind of message
would
be sending to other aboriginal societies?"  I am absolutely convinced that the
Lubicon people are perceived by the government of Canada as serving as
inspiration
to other aboriginal people to stand up and fight for their rights and
therefore
the government seeks to crush them.  I don't think they want a settlement on
their
terms or on anybody else's terms.  I think they want to finish them.  I think
if
the Lubicons were prepared to accept their "take-it-or-leave-it" offer or
anything
tomorrow, there'd be five years of negotiations talking about implementation
of
the agreement which would then collapse, because I don't think they want the
Lubicon community to be on the face of the earth.

Jacques Johnson:  Returning very briefly here, I would just like to ask the
Chief...how differently are the Lubicons being treated now from the regular
Treaty
8 people?  Do you have all the benefits that accrue to these people?  Are you
still left out in limbo in terms of all the services that are being given to
treaty people say in Grouard or Atikameg or wherever?

Bernard Ominayak:  Father Johnson, I don't exactly know what all kinds of
services
are being provided to the rest of the Treaty 8 peoples.  We certainly have not
been receiving many of those benefits.  We've received some housing since
1980-81,
4 units per year.  And welfare.  Now, since the TB epidemic we've had a little
Medical, CHR, Community Health Worker who sets up appointments for people in
Peace
River and I think has a couple of bandages in the community.  Through that
we've
got a vehicle that transports people back and forth.  The other thing that I
think
maybe I should mention, I didn't mention yesterday.  We do have one of our
Elders
back in the hospital.  He's in serious condition.  The TB has reactivated
apparently, at least that's the information that we've got.  Hopefully we'll
be
able to check in with him before we go back.  Other than that, like education,
we
don't have a say as to what happens with education.  I think most of the other
Bands have their schools and so on and they play an important role as far as
the
curriculum is concerned.  We don't have water and sewer.  We don't have any
money
for economic development so they say that we'll be a bigger problem if they
give
us more money.  They give us a little bit of administration money.  We have a
little office where we work out of.  And that's basically it.  Unless Fred
here
can...

Fred Lennarson:  The situation is one where Bands with reserves qualify by
formula
and program for all kinds of monies.  Schools are amortized over a 20 or 25
year
period.  There is money for road maintenance and the like.  The Lubicons don't
have recognized reserve land.  They don't qualify for any of these things. 
That's
what this settlement agreement is all about.  It is to try and create a
community
where people can live and meet their responsibilities to each other and to
their
children and to their society.  There's been, for example, a health unit in
the
budget projections of National Health and Welfare every year going back to at
least 1984-85 that I know of.  But the Lubicons have never gotten a Health
Unit. 
They don't have a reserve.

Michael Asch:  I'm going to follow up on this and move a little bit into self-
government, but maybe not too much.  I've been trying to think about how I
would
go about asking a couple of questions here.  They're maybe at one level
somewhat
technical, but at the same time I think they will help me understand something
about what the settlement is all about and where some issues might be or might
not
be.  

I'll start with something that seems really very ABC and very arcane.  The
government of Canada, in the 1989 agreement, makes it clear in 8.3 that they
want
this not to be considered a land claims agreement.  I presume that that means
with
respect to Section 35 implications of having this agreement as part of the
constitution of Canada.  There's nothing in your proposal that says one way or
another whether you consider it to be a land claims agreement, that I saw. 
And I
don't know whether this is something that's important, not important, and I'm
not
sure who to ask.  So I ask you to give it to anyone you think you'd like to.

Bernard Ominayak:  Well, first of all, Michael, we've always stated that we
retain
our aboriginal title and we have basically moved forward and pursued the
aboriginal rights avenue.  That's pertaining to the overall aspect of any
agreement.  But these were the kinds of issues that we had very early on put
aside
so that we could try and arrive at the elements of an agreement, not defining
what
kind of a claim per se but rather trying to arrive an agreement at which point
the
definition of the nature of our rights would be moot if there was a
satisfactory
agreement in place that would enable our people to start building a future. 
But
at no point did we ever say we are under any kind of a specific definition of
the
claim, but rather we moved forward with an aboriginal rights claim and we've
always maintained that direction.  Just while we were trying to move things,
while
we were at the negotiating table, we were prepared to put that definition
aside. 
But maybe Fred could say more about that.

Fred Lennarson:  Michael, my interpretation of 8.3 is the same as yours.  It's
our
interpretation generally and it is in our judgement an effort on the part of
Canada to say that this is not a new treaty, this is not a new agreement, this
is
Treaty 8.  At the same time that they claim the Lubicons are part of Treaty 8
they
also, as part of their settlement agreement you will note, want the Lubicons
to
sign an adhesion to a treaty that supposedly already covers them.

Michael Asch:  Exactly.

Fred Lennarson:  The Lubicon position, as Bernard has indicated, is that they
retain existing aboriginal rights, continuing aboriginal rights.  They've
never
ceded their traditional lands in any legally or historically recognized way. 
In
1985 during the discussions with E. Davie Fulton the Lubicons said, "We want
to
retain control of our own affairs, we're prepared to negotiate some rights,
prepared to cede some specific rights and we intend to retain other kinds of
rights.  We intend to retain certain rights with regard to wildlife management
and
environmental protection over our bigger area, for example, but we are
prepared to
cede some sub-surface rights and so on as part of an agreement."  Mr. Fulton
asked
the Lubicon people if they could put in writing how they saw administering
their
own affairs, Lubicon government.  The Lubicons prepared a Lubicon government
paper
and it is attached to this draft settlement agreement.  What it specifies
essentially is that the Lubicon people are prepared, want to manage their own
affairs on reserve subject only to the Canadian constitution, and here we're
talking Bill of Rights stuff basically.  Mr. Fulton came back and said, "Well,
what about things like criminal law and long-term incarceration."  And the
Lubicon
people in negotiations said, "Well, look, we're not interested in maintaining
institutions for long-term incarceration and so on.  But we are interested in
the
jurisdictional question."  So what the Lubicons proposed to do is adopt
identical
measures with regard to some things like the criminal code and then work out a
cooperative relationship with Canada regarding how this thing is administered.

But they'd retain their jurisdiction and right to govern their own affairs. 
Now
what has happened since, the government tried to bring them under the
government's
self-government legislation and so on, and where we ended up with all of that
is
agreement to sit down and try to hammer out an agreement which would take into
account both the government's self-government legislation and the Lubicon
position
on self-government.  So I guess the bottom line is that it's unresolved.  The
government continues to try and delimit and the Lubicon position has remained
consistent through this period.

Michael Asch:  So is it...(change tapes)...

Bob Sachs:  ...Michael, you see through their agreements.  And every time we
talk
to them we find that we're talking a full and final settlement with releases,
and
they want those so desperately to cut off anything in the future, particularly
this whole question of aboriginal rights and title and what that means.

Michael Asch:  I'm still trying to just get a little bit of clarification.  Is
the
position then that it would be possible to go ahead with an agreement and
leave
for subsequent negotiations with the federal government the jurisdictional
question?  Or are the jurisdictional questions fundamental to the position
that's
being put forward now and would need to be negotiated now before any other
aspect
of the agreement would be acceptable?  

Fred Lennarson:  I appreciate your question, Michael, and it's a really
complicated area.  The Lubicon position is that the jurisdictional issues are
essential.  But there are all kinds of issues that are essential.  They've got
pressing problems in terms of medical care and employment and education and
all
the rest of it.  It's a question of how you balance it.  What was attempted
around
the negotiating table was an agreement that certain things respecting
jurisdiction
would be agreed and the details would then have to be worked out over time. 
That's not something that any of us are very comfortable with but it is a
situation that we faced -- especially at that point, and that was before some
of
the more recent developments -- we faced a situation of having to try and
hammer
out with the government an agreement in terms of the kinds of powers that the
Lubicon people would be specifically exercising.  So it is not an easy, simple
crisp question, but those are the objectives and those are the things that we
were
seeking to do around the table.

Bernard Ominayak:  Michael, maybe just an addition to what Fred is saying. 
The
last time I met with the Minister in trying to get negotiations going, what we
talked about was maybe the possibility of looking at a partial settlement, on
a
without prejudice basis, with no kind of a release whatsoever in order to try
and
start building the community.  That was the only reason why we said okay,
we'll
get our people involved and see what is going to be possible, if anything.  We
were to leave the bigger issues like compensation aside to try and find a
process
for solving them whether it be arbitration or in the final analysis going to
court.  But that would mean again no releases until all these matters were
dealt
with and resolved...These are all really serious factors that we have to look
at. 
For example, I don't know what is going to be possible, or if anything is
going to
be possible with all the discussions and talks that have taken place in so far
as
the constitution.  What are the aboriginal people going to be able to get in
so
far as the constitution?  What rights are going to be recognized by the
federal
government?  We don't know if anything is going to change from what is
actually in
the constitution at this point.  The other factor is that we have to look at
is
what has already been dealt with, or what kind of agreements have already been
made.  For example, in the treaties, to what degree have the aboriginal people
ceded their rights?  These are all factors.  What are the rest of the
aboriginal
people going to do in that whole area?  We don't know.  These are all factors
that
we gave to take into account and maybe, depending on when we get to some
serious
discussions on the nitty-gritty of things by way of finalizing an agreement,
these
are all considerations that our people have to seriously look at, because as
an
aboriginal person I don't think any of the Lubicon members are prepared to
just
cede that right of self-government.  We don't have that right to cede in the
first
place.  So these are factors and serious considerations that our people have
to
look at.

Michael Asch:  I understand.  I just have two questions that I hope -- at
least
I'll address them quickly.  I don't know how long it might take you to answer
them.  I certainly don't want you to rush.  The first, this is more for my
fellow
Commissioners so they know how much of a hog I am, there are other agreements
in
which the federal government has proposed that whatever settlement is taking
place
with respect to land and resources is without prejudice to whatever aboriginal
or
treaty rights might exist with respect to governance and jurisdiction.  Has
that
been proposed to you and have you had an opportunity to deal with it, because
of
course various Nations have dealt with that differently.

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess that's one of the things I was trying to bring up. 
A
lot of the different groups are making agreements.  My understanding with the
Northwest Territories is that again they want basically to get rid of those
people
as people on paper.  I don't think they're prepared to do that.  That is one
of
the factors that we have.  In direct negotiations, I haven't been involved in
direct negotiations.  Whether those discussions surrounding those points that
you
brought up, I don't know, Michael, maybe Fred?

Fred Lennarson:  Put the question again, Michael, because I'm not sure what
you're
asking.  I think I know what you're asking, but I'm not sure.

Michael Asch:  I do know that in other agreements when an impasse has been
reached
on the question on whether these agreements are going to extinguish aboriginal
or
treaty rights, the government has come up with wording that it will claim will
give relief to the aboriginal party.  And that wording will say that whatever
is
taking place in this claim and whatever you are signing is without prejudice
to
whatever rights you may have through your aboriginal or treaty rights in the
area
of governance and jurisdiction.

Fred Lennarson:  The wording is a little different than the wording used in
Lubicon negotiations which is why the question is funny to my ear.  In
negotiations, the Lubicons agreed to enter negotiations without prejudice to
the
position of both parties just to see if we could agree on anything, if we
could
agree on land, if we could agree on housing, is we could agree on water and
sewer
and economic development and compensation and the like.  And we put off the
whole
question of what kind of rights we're talking about.  The government has,
throughout the process, been trying to define Lubicon rights as an outstanding
treaty land entitlement and that's reflected in their documents and you can
see
it.  Although their position is -- as in the case with most of their positions
--
it's never very straight-forward -- they claim the Lubicons are covered by
treaty,
but they want the Lubicons to sign an adhesion to treaty and so on.  We have
never
really gotten through the process on the elements to get to the question of
the
nature of the rights and how we handle it.  The Lubicon position around the
table
has always been that when we get to that point, the Lubicon people are
prepared to
talk about ceding specific rights with regard to specific benefits, but are
not
prepared to cede, to provide a blanket cessation of their aboriginal status or
aboriginal rights.  We've never really gotten to the question as you put it
because of the way that negotiations have proceeded.

Michael Asch:  That's fair enough. 

Bob Sachs:  As I indicated to you earlier, that exact scenario was put to
them, in
fact, last Friday, that the agreement with the Ouje-Bougoumou was without
prejudice to their rights to sue the federal government with respect to those
sorts of questions.  The response from the federal government with respect to
that
scenario is, because the province is taking the position that there is no such
thing as aboriginal rights, then we can't enter into that sort of an agreement
which is at odds with what the province is.  In order words, again, they want
a
full and final settlement with all three parties.

Michael Asch:  Well, hopefully we'll be able to...

Bob Sachs:  So that's the present hang-up.

Michael Asch:  I understand.  Just one last thing.  Has the federal government
or
the provincial government at any point -- because I notice nothing in any of
the
documentation that we have -- ever come up with any proposals on what self-
government might look like in this area, or have they just been quiet on it? 
Is
there anything that we could look at that they might have come up with?  Or
have
they not put up anything on it?

Bob Sachs:  Other than some very specific items that they are sort of willing
to
talk about -- one of them is policing, another one is the possibility of a
court
room -- but those again, Michael, are very program-specific.  Overall self-
government...

Fred Lennarson:  What they have put forward, Michael, is their own
self-government
legislation and guidelines.  And they have said that any powers with regard to
Lubicon self-government would have to be negotiated -- many words have been
used,
taking into account, consistent with -- and we've debated those things 
They've
said it's got to be in line with their guidelines, and the Lubicon position is
that it has to be in line with the Lubicon position on management and self-
government.  So that's what's been put forward.  Their self-government
legislation
guidelines, copies of which are attached to the materials you have and you've
probably seen before, and the Lubicon's self-government position, a copy of
which
you also have.

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess this is a lot like, for example, Treaty 8.  The
federal
government and the provincial governments have one definition or description
of
Treaty 8, while, if you speak to the Elders of Alberta who are part of Treaty
8,
they have a totally different version of Treaty 8 and the reason why they
signed
Treaty 8.  And then we speak of self-government, well the federal government
is
talking about more limited self-government, while Native people are talking
about
total self-government.  So that problem that's across Canada is the same
problem
that we have at this point.  We have our own idea and definition of self-
government, but that's not necessarily in line with what the government is
talking
about.  I guess a lot is going to dependent as to again, what kind of an
agreement
we may be able to pull off.

Menno Wiebe:  Further on self-government, we've learned of some of the
difficulties with regard to health care and also education.  Would you be
prepared
to say something about your vision of self-government with reference to school
and
health care?

Bernard Ominayak:  Again, Menno, I guess what we would like to see in place
for
our people at this point is dependent upon what kind of agreements we're able
to
come up with.  But in so far as education, what we have in the community at
this
point in time isn't working.  We know that.  We don't have any say as to what
takes place at the school at this point.  We don't get involved with the
curriculum.  We have some of our people playing aides to the teachers now,
which
is a step I guess in the right direction, but in so far as the school itself,
we
have very little input.  While if we were able to get an agreement, we
certainly
are going to be directly involved with the school and also with the
curriculum,
the selection of teachers, how the school is run and the whole works will be
under
the peoples' guidance rather than the provincial government.  One of the
restrictions that the school has right now is that they are not to get
involved
with the leadership or with the people which they consider would be a
political
involvement.  

Now we just had a couple of incidents -- three in fact -- with the principal
there.  They were told not to get involved in politics, but at the same time
she's
writing letters to different people like Norcen and Daishowa asking for grants
from these companies to take the kids on a field trip.  So Daishowa sends a
couple
of hundred dollar check, which we said had to go back.  We finally convinced
the
teachers that that money would have to go back because they are one of the
biggest
enemies and we certainly shouldn't be getting involved in that way.  So my
point
is that while we don't get involved with the school and have no say in it, the
principal is certainly getting into politics in the wrong way.  I don't know
where
she's getting her guidance from.  There's an article apparently already in the
Peace River paper saying that it's the students that suffer because Daishowa
is a
good corporate citizen and they are providing money to the kids to go on the
field
trip.  And they're only talking about a couple of hundred dollars.  I don't
know
how far the kids would have gotten with that.  Anyways, she also had asked for
money from Norcen, who is one of the bigger enemies again.  She's been told
time
after time that she shouldn't be doing these things, and if she's going to be
asking for money from the enemy then she should at least be checking with the
leadership of the community prior to doing so.  She still keeps doing it and
keeps
doing it.  We've notified the head people at Northlands and there hasn't been
a
correction made to this, so it's getting to a point where a lot of the parents
are
saying what's the use, because even with this fight going on the teachers
aren't
allowed to be talking to our kids about the reasons for the fight and what the
government's doing to our people.  There's a book that was brought out last
November that John Goddard wrote, I'm sure a lot of you would have seen it. 
Now
that can't even be in school, the kids aren't reading that book in school. 
This
is why this fight is on, for our younger generation.  They've got a right to
know
what is going on, why we were fighting day and night to keep the hope that we
do
get something in place for them.  

These are some of the things that maybe are a little out of context here, but
they're part of the overall picture.  We have these problems and they're
totally
unnecessary.  One of the other reasons why I brought it up was one of the
teachers
said, "Well, kids need the money to go on this field trip so they could learn
of
other aboriginal people and what's going on."  The kids are the ones that are
supposedly writing letters to Daishowa and so on.  So I said to them, if the
teachers were doing their job, I'm sure the children wouldn't be writing
letters
to the enemy...

Menno Wiebe:  To what extent is the Lubicon community prepared to administer
their
own school including the selecting of staff, curriculum and administrative
procedures generally?

Bernard Ominayak:  Menno, I think that's a big problem at this point in time,
because we don't have the money to be hiring the teachers or running the
school,
even though some of our kids tuition is being paid for by Indian Affairs. 
That's
directly between Northlands and Indian Affairs.  If we were to take over then
we
would be able to control, for example, the tuition agreements.  We would have
more
say as to what happened in the school.  But we haven't done that and until we
do
take over, then we have very little say.

Fred Lennarson:  I'd like to supplement Bernard's comments because I think the
Commission needs a full appreciation of the dynamic involved.  A couple of
years
ago people writing to Daishowa expressing concern about the plight of the
Lubicons
received letters from Daishowa attaching an article from the Peace River
Record
Gazette showing Lubicon kids on a tour of the Daishowa plant and the letter
from
the Daishowa official writing to people said:  "With regard to your expressed
concern about Lubicon children, the attached article shows our concern for the
Lubicon children."  The kids had been taken to Daishowa, their picture taken
by
Daishowa photographers, I'm not sure of this but very likely the article
written
by Daishowa people as well...and the kids were used in this way without
consulting
their parents.  The parents were not advised of this trip.  The principal was
told
by community leaders if she's going to be making contacts with possible
outside
funding agencies and outside corporations to please consult with the community
leadership because this is a complicated, delicate situation and the Lubicon
people don't want their children used as cannon fodder by companies like
Daishowa,
which was clearly the case.  We have copies of the letters and we can provide
them
to the Commission.

The Lubicon parents turn around and this recent trip is planned and money has
been
solicited from Daishowa.  Lubicon leaders told the principal that the
community
would provide the money but the principal called a meeting at the school the
next
day and told the kids that they couldn't go because she'd been instructed by
community leadership to send the Daishowa money back.  That isn't what she'd
been
told.  What she'd been told was to send back the Daishowa money and the
community
will provide the money instead.  As Bernard said, it was only a couple of
hundred
bucks.  

This history goes back many years.  Seven or eight years ago they came in with
a
proposal to build a new school and provincial officials made a request of
Indian
Affairs to contribute the majority of the funds which had supposedly been
approved
by the Chief and Council.  The Chief and Council in fact hadn't been
consulted. 
Indian Affairs was going ahead and planning to provide money on a falsified
approval from the Chief and Council.  When the Lubicons found out about this,
they
asked the Northlands School Division to please hold off on construction of the
new
school because these things, as I indicated earlier, are amortized over a 25
year
period.  If the money goes into a provincial school where the reserve is not
to be
built there would then be problems getting the money for an on-reserve school,
and
so on.  They were asked to hold off.  They declined to do it and indicated
they
were going to proceed anyway.  One of the people from Northlands School
Division
walked into Bernard's office, threw some plans on his table and told Bernard
to
have the local school committee approve this.  Bernard gave it to the
democratically elected school committee and they requested that the School
Division hold off on construction of the new school.  At the time the School
Division was run by a man named Fred Dumont -- they dismissed the Board
because of
a scandal in another community -- who announced that the democratically
elected
school committee didn't represent anybody and that he was going to proceed
with
construction of the school.  So the school committee came to the community in
a
community meeting and asked for support.  A petition was circulated to
everybody
in the community.  95% of the people said they wanted construction of the
school
postponed.  Dumont then proposed to have a community meeting.  He sent his
people
out to organize a community meeting.  He sent letters to all of the parents
saying
that they were being irresponsible parents, that their kids wouldn't get any
education, that construction of the school would provide jobs and that there'd
never be a new school if the parents didn't support its construction now.  And
then, a day before the meeting was to be held, several pick-up trucks full of
booze were brought into the community to discourage a good community meeting. 
The
community still told Mr. Dumont that they did not want a school built with
federal
funds at this time and asked again that this thing be postponed.  Dumont then
called a second community meeting which went the same way. He again rejected
community wishes.  The then provincial Education Minister -- a man named King
--
announced that the Lubicon people didn't have any concern for the education of
their children but he had to have concern so he was going to proceed with
construction of the school after all.  It was at that point that national
church
leaders came in and international attention was focused on the situation and
the
government backed off.  But those are the kinds of problems that have existed
with
the parents and the operation of this school in the community.

Sandy Day:  I just wanted to make one comment on your proposal.  To me it's
such a
fundamental difference in thinking in that in your proposal there's a
well-rounded
-- it works in a circle -- in that Elders are brought into the process, the
young
people are brought in and it is a community-wide, full range program.  I did
think
issues like this, they're not being fully addressed because the government is
thinking in a linear way and it's just separating and I think I'd like your
comments on that.  Also on a brief vein, why the vocational school, when the
provincial government agreed to it, why it couldn't be on the Lubicon land,
because then it took away the whole meaning of having it.

Bernard Ominayak:  I'm sorry, could you maybe repeat your earlier question?

Sandy Day:  I was just commenting on in your proposal how you -- I really
respected your area on education and how it's tied in with your
social-economic --
that it is well-rounded.  And I said I think it's a reflection of how you're
thinking in bringing in your elders and having them work with your young
people,
having your vocational school set up so that your young people training there
will
go out into the community and work.  It's very much a full circle and bringing
back together the community.  To me, it's so different from how our government
looks at it in that it's very linear, that it's separated -- like you said
earlier, it's compartmentalized.  I'd just like your comments on that.

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess, as I spoke to it some yesterday, I pointed out
that we
were trying to keep our ways intact as much as possible, what has worked in
the
past where we had all people involved in whatever we did.  There we were
looking
at that tradition, to try and carry it through the educational system, because
we're -- on one hand, going away completely from one way of lifestyle to
another. 
To try and adapt into that we needed the involvement of all the people --
young,
old and the mixture that needs to be there.  That's what we were concentrating
on. 
Also trying to keep the family ties together which we were dependent on in the
past, because in any society you have some that are good in different areas. 
Like
we had some good hunters and a whole lot of the community was dependent on
these
hunters.  Some were better trappers and we were dependent on those.  Some
women
were good at different areas, like some made better hides or made better
moccasins
and all these different things.  Even though all the women were involved in a
lot
of this stuff, some were better than others.  So we had to try and utilize the
different people throughout the process in whatever they were good at.  For
example, out medicine men -- there were some stronger than others, so we had
to
point to those resources too.  So all these different things we've learned
from
the past and hopefully we're able to keep that intact as we make that
transition
from one way of life to another.  I guess that was the thing that we tried to
keep
in mind as we tried to plan as to what may be possible and what we hoped would
work.  That again applies to game-ranching, you know, whether the buffalo are
going to adapt and how well do they adapt, what does it take to raise them,
how
hard is it to keep them.  These are all questions that we were looking at. 
Also
the meat is a lot like the moose, so the taste is similar so it wouldn't be
that
difficult.  If it would have been a goat, for example, well, maybe nobody
would
want to eat the meat.  So these are the things that we tried to plan for, we
tried
to look at.  There is again saskatoon berries and cranberries and all these
things
which are natural to the area.  Hopefully, if there are hybrid saskatoons
maybe
there's going to be hybrid cranberries.  So we keep looking and listening and
hopefully we're able to make the transition when the time comes.  Right now
there's nothing in place and also to try and get our younger ones to start
gearing
up to certain goals.  That's another thing that we tried to look at.  But it
seems
like the experience that we've had in looking at all these other Indian
Nations
that have been dealing with the government for quite some time -- it seems
like
the federal government doesn't want to see Native people get on their own two
feet.  They would provide monies to a certain point, but if the people are
doing
well and they're serious, then the government seems to want to pull back. 
They
seem to want to keep the bridle in their mouths so they can control.  That's
one
of the bigger -- another issue that's been a factor in all...(change tapes)...

Fred Lennarson:  ...for vocational training.  The federal government has
jurisdictional responsibility for Indians.  The way that they sort this thing
out
is that the provincial government builds vocational training centers in places
like Edmonton and Grande Prairie, and then the federal government will pay for
seats for Treaty Indians.  However it doesn't work very well sending northern
bush
Indians to Edmonton for training for things like carpentry.  The drop-out rate
is
almost 100%...this has been something that the Lubicon people have worked on
for
years and years.  The Lubicon people have to maintain heavy equipment and
farming
equipment and so on to do what they want to do, plus they are looking to a big
development phase to try and rebuild their community -- roads, water, sewer,
houses, community facilities and the like -- and they wanted to use this 5, 8,
9
year construction period to help their people pick up vocational training
skills. 
But that means the vocational training has to be provided on the reserve.  You
can't be building houses in Little Buffalo and having your people learning
carpentry in Grande Prairie.  You can't put those two things together unless
you
have the training in the community.  So the Lubicon people looked at the
number of
people that they had, and the kind of course offerings they wanted.  They
consulted with other aboriginal communities in the surrounding area and asked
if
this kind of facility would be of interest to them as well, so that this would
be
kind of an area institution for people.  There was a great response to that. 
Other aboriginal people said that they would like to have that kind of
training in
a northern aboriginal community.  

So that was what the Lubicons were pursuing when they sat down with the
federal
government in December of '88.  The federal government said no vocational
training
center, but we have lots of programs that you can apply to for subsidies to go
someplace and get training.  But no facility, no building.  There are
provincial
and federal programs both to buy seats to run the thing when you get it set
up,
but no capital construction money, no money to build the facility.

Premier Getty and Bernard sat down and talked about the problems with the
federal
government offer, and this was one of the topics that was raised, and it was
one
of the things that was specifically identified when Premier Getty found the
federal "take-it-or-leave-it" offer to be "deficient".  The Premier proposed
to
make a provincial government contribution of $3 million which is what this
facility was budgeted at.  The plan for the facility, by the way, came from
people
in provincial Advanced Education and Manpower.  We went and consulted with
them
about vocational training centers to provide the kind of training that we're
talking about, about what would be required for space and equipment and one
thing
or another.  That's where the numbers came from.  They came from the
provincial
department, those are the people in the business.  At any rate, Premier Getty
said
that he would be prepared to put $3 million into vocational training.  When he
and
Bernard talked he knew very well that we were talking about a building here, a
facility.  He said, "We'll turn it over to my provincial negotiators to sort
out
the details of how this thing is to be done."

So it went to the provincial negotiating team and they said, "Well, this is
very
complicated and we'll have people look at it and look at the jurisdiction
questions, because we build these things but we build them on provincial land,
not
on Indian land, which is federal jurisdiction.  We've got to figure out how to
do
that.  In the meantime would you be interested in thinking about the kinds of
programs we offer normally.  We'd like to bring in people and tell you what
these
programs are."  So we said bring them in.  We will report back to the
community on
what you tell us.  One of the things they told us was they had a little
experiment
in academic up-grading in Whitecourt.  They had a little trailer, computerized
programs, individualized programming where individuals would sit in front of a
computer and operate at their own speed.  They would be given an assignment on
the
computer.  They would perform the assignment and they'd do it as many times as
they needed and then move at their own speed.  It was a little thing, I don't
know, with 10-15 students in it and it went up to grade 10 and most of them
were
in grade 10 when they started it and it was working very well and they liked
it,
although it was in education terms, creaming.  They sure as hell weren't
starting
with people who couldn't read and write.  But they said, "Would the Lubicons
be
interested in this kind of thing?  We can bring this up and put it in your
area
and people can attend it."  So the Lubicons came down and looked at the
trailer in
Whitecourt and figured maybe some of their high school students could benefit
from
this kind of normal government program initiative.  

We continued to push for a reaction from the provincial government on
construction
of the on-reserve vocational training facility, continued to push for 6 or so
months.  We were talking for 18 months but not on this one item...They said
the
people that need to look at it are on vacation, aren't available, and there
was
one problem after another.  Finally when we pushed them, when we tabled the
draft
settlement agreement in an effort to try and pin down agreement with them on
something, they told us that now the proposal was to expend $2.5 million
setting
up the trailer off reserve, staffed with provincial government employees to
provide academic up-grading for the Lubicons.  And that's what happened -- it
was
$2.5 million to set up a trailer and operate it for five years.  That's where
the
proposal went.

Most recently, in the federal government's proposal, federal negotiators said
they
were making good progress and we were going to get a vocational training
center
and we were advised that it would be a $3 million vocational training center
like
the Lubicons were projecting in their draft settlement agreement.  However
what is
in fact in the new federal government proposals is a letter from the Regional
Indian Affairs Director General to Bob Sachs informing Sachs that the province
is
now considering a proposal from some unknown source -- we didn't make it -- a
proposal to build a little high school industrial arts shop as an attachment
to
the high school.  It has a 2-stall automotive shop and a wood-working shop. 
And
so this same Indian Affairs Regional Director General phoned me the other
night,
last week, trying to get together with me concerned about the establishment of
this Commission, and he said, "I understand you've got some problems".  I said
"Yeah, we don't have a vocational training centre, an old peoples' home.  We
don't
have a community hall.  We don't have a community rec centre."  He said,
"Didn't
you see my proposal on the vocational training centre?"  I said, "Well, I saw
the
letter where you say the province is considering a proposal to build an
industrial
arts shop onto the high school."  And he said, "Well, I think a creative
architect
can transform that into pretty much what the Lubicons want."  And I said,
"Well,
it's going to be quite an architectural feat to transform a 200 sq. meter
2-car
automotive shop and a wood-working shop into a 2,500 sq. meter community
improvement shop and vocational training center where the Lubicon people are
proposing to maintain road graders to maintain their roads, maintain 4-wheel
drive
tractors for their agricultural operations, pre-fabricate elements of their
housing program like roof trusses which they can do in the winter and when
they
get into the building season they can use them."  He assured me a creative
architect could solve that problem.

That's where things are right now.  What we've got is a letter from an Indian
Affairs official to the Lubicon lawyer Bob Sachs here saying that the province
is
considering a proposal to build an industrial arts shop onto the high school,
and
that with a creative architect he's sure that everything's going to turn out
all
right.

Menno Wiebe:  This Commission has the dubious task of trying to hear with both
of
our ears and then learning as much as we can about the truth of the impasse. 
While we have the Lubicon community well represented here by your lawyer, your
Chief, your advisor, and or course by the others, I would think that one of
the
formulations we will want to make would have reference to the regulatory
procedures.  I think you have told us today that the political framework -- be
it
provincial or federal -- and its various departments and the courts are not
channels that accommodate Lubicon interests in the negotiations.  In other
words,
the regular official pathways of resolving disputes seem not to be working for
you.  Maybe including the negotiations.  Have we heard you correctly on that? 
I'm
assuming that one reason this Commission has come into being is to constitute
an
alternative mechanism for getting at the impasse.  Maybe the question -- are
you
telling us that the regular means of dispute settlement are not working for
you? 
This is not an attempt to put words in your mouth, but I think we need a
statement
from you so the Commission will have a basis for verbalizing its findings.

Bernard Ominayak:  Menno, I guess what we've done is we've more or less led
you
through the experiences we've had in trying to deal with both levels of the
Canadian government up to this point.  We've tried different routes.  We tried
the
legal avenue through the courts and that hasn't worked.  We tried the
political
process which I think is one of the reasons why we're still around today. 
There's
a lot of people who've tried to support us in many, many different endeavours
that
we've pursued.  That's not to say that we're any closer to a settlement than
we've
been in the past.  I don't think that's anywhere near at this point.  I don't
feel
that anybody needs to put words in our mouth.  I think we see and hear the
attitude and what is being dished out by both levels of government.  I guess
one
of the reasons we're here is to try and present the facts as they are and the
way
we saw them and lived through the experiences.  We also see the hardships at
the
community level that our people have been forced under by governments and also
the
people that are interested in our natural resources.  I guess hopefully the
Commission, after hearing our side of the story, that they have the same
opportunity to hear the others and their points of view in regards to the
Lubicon
issue.  And through that process I would hope that, or would welcome any
recommendations that this Commission may have towards resolving the long
outstanding issue of the Lubicon people and their rights and how it may lead
to a
fair and just resolution to this situation.  At this point, we certainly can't
go
beyond that to say, this is what we need and so on.  But rather we await the
findings, and if there are recommendations in any of the different areas that
we
pointed out, we would be more than pleased to hear them and see how we can
utilize
whatever recommendations may arise in any of the areas that we've spoken to
you
about, whether it be how to negotiate or how to use the courts or maybe how do
we
deal with self-government in our package or education.  Please feel free to
let us
know what you may feel or hope would be possible.  It is true that we're under
a
lot of pressure from both levels of government, and also the many
multi-national
corporations that we're faced with.  But nevertheless, we're here and we'll
try
and make ourselves available at any point, whether by phone or if there are
any
more questions by any of you within the Commission.  If you need further
information or any of the documents that we may have we will try and make them
available to you.  Also if there's going to be a need that we come back at any
point we would certainly try and make ourselves available for that too.  Other
than that I don't think there's too much I can say at this point.  I guess
I'll
just hope for the best.  I'm certainly glad that you do have a lot of good
people
on your Commission and people who have a lot of experience in many of the
areas,
especially in northern Alberta.  I think that's real plus.  And hopefully
you'll
find it within your hearts to support us after you consider all aspects of
this
situation.  We certainly welcome any ideas or recommendations.  I don't have
to
repeat myself on that.  Feel free to call us anytime if there are questions. 
Either through Fred, Bob or Jim.  I guess that's all.  I thank you all for
inviting us here.  Hopefully we'll see you soon.

Jennifer Klimek:  On behalf of the Commission, I'd like to ask if anyone has
any
further questions for Chief Ominayak or any of the other people?  On behalf of
the
Commission I'd very much like to thank you for your day and if you have
anything
further you'd like to say now or that you think we may have missed?  Once
again,
we'd like to thank you.  We very much appreciate your time and your effort in
getting down here.  We realize it's a very long drive for you.  I know for one
--
and I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of the other Commissioners -- we learned a
lot
in the last two days.  It was a real opportunity to hear your side of the
equation
and to have you explain it to us.  We only hope that we have the same
opportunity
from the federal and provincial governments.  As you know, we have not had a
response from them as of yet.  As far as our timetable, so much is going to
depend
on that, but we will certainly keep you apprised, as well as the public, as to
what our next step will be in the process.  I'd just like to thank you for
coming
today.  We'll close for today and once we get our timetable we'll be sure to
let
you know and to advise you that you're all more than welcome to come and
listen to
any further proceedings.  Our aim is to have it in public so that everyone has
an
opportunity to hear and listen and evaluate on their own what is going on and
what
both sides have to say.  We'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the
Basilica for the use of their facilities.  It's been a very fine facility and
very
useful and this may well be where the further meetings are going to be held. 
We
thank them very much for their donation of the place.  Thank you.