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

Commission Members Present

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

Commission Members Absent

Wilfred Barranoik                           
Normand Boucher                             
Theresa McBean                              

Lubicon Representatives Present

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



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

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

Edward Laboucan:  (In Cree)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that I guess I will stop there.  Hopefully -- the only other thing that I
would like to add at this point is I hope that both levels of government will
be equally anxious to participate in this Commission because I think we need
all the help we can get from anybody whether it be the Commission or anybody
that's interested in seeing a fair and just settlement of the Lubicon problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the traditional area.  That's where we have our traplines and that's
where our people have hunted all these years.

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

Bernard Ominayak:  Yes, approximately.

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

Bernard Ominayak:  Our position, and if we were to look at it from the legal
perspective, I guess a lot of you would have heard that back in 1899 that the
treaty commissioners went out into northern Alberta and signed with a lot of
the various Bands, the Treaty 8.  Through that process we were missed out
altogether.  What happened basically was that those who signed gave up larger
portions of so-called traditional territories at that point and there are
different versions of this depending on who you talk to.  Again, if you talk
to the Native people you get a different version than the federal government's
description of Treaty 8.  But what they basically stated is that they had
these traditional territories and then they, when they signed the treaty, they
gave up those larger portions in exchange for a smaller portion which they
then called reserves, with certain benefits along with those.  Now, as I say,
there're disputes over that by a lot of the Native peoples.  We've done
research into that too whereby the misunderstandings between what was written
and what was agreed to verbally.  But we were completely missed out of that
process, so we retain our aboriginal title to our traditional lands where
we've lived all these years as far back as people can remember...well beyond
1899 when the treaties were signed.  We've been able to establish that we were
there well before the treaties were signed.  But we were never a party to
Treaty 8.  Even though we're within the Treaty area we were never a party to
Treaty 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are all ideas that we've talked about.  One of the things that we've
really stressed and we've really been pushing is education, school.  We looked
at trying to bring the school up from say K to maybe grade 10 or 11 or 12, as
high as we could, depending on how we do with negotiations.  We haven't done
very well in that area.  But the wishes of the people are that we'd like to
bring that as high as possible because the higher we go the older the children
become.  At this point they go to grade 8 and have to leave when they're 13 or
14 and get into a different school and they're dropped back a couple of grades
automatically because the quality of education isn't quite up to par with the
rest of the school system.  So that is a problem that we saw and wanted to
pursue -- the education aspect of it.  But in trying to put the school and
education as a priority, we ran into a number of difficulties where we also
knew that a lot of our people don't have very much education and we have to
try and get them educated to a degree to be able to do the things we want to
do -- like if we were to get into ranching, we'd have to get into some
agricultural things.  Like for example, if we have cattle then we're going to
need grain and if we're going to have grain then we're going to have to have
machinery and everything is getting modern and our people don't read or write.

So we  have to try and educate people who may be able to run certain
machinery, but to also be able to repair them to a degree.  So we were looking
at a vocational centre tied in with the school.  But then you have the
different areas, for example, a mechanic, a carpenter, a vet if we're looking
at animals -- all these different things that we would have to look at.  In
our community at this particular point in time our kids don't have anything to
look forward to, nothing to go to school for, there's no goals out there. 
They don't want to leave the community and they're stuck.  There's nothing in
the bush for them any more.  Our Elders have a lot of valuable knowledge as to
how to survive off the land but when you destroy the land that knowledge isn't
viable any more.  So that's why we have the kind of gap between the younger
generation and the older generation because we're not able to utilize and tap
onto that resource and that knowledge that's there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will illustrate it with one other thing.  The Lubicons submitted pages and
pages -- I don't know how many in total it was because it was in a number of
different files -- but 50-60 pages of proposals on their agricultural
proposals -- all of which are summarized in one form or another in the Lubicon
draft settlement agreement, a copy of which you have.  How many cattle they'd
buy a year, how much land they would develop for forage crops, how much
equipment they had to have -- all of this carefully calculated working with
people who run large cow/calf operations and people who sell the equipment and
the fertilizer and everything you can think of. The government's reaction to
that -- which has undergone some minor revisions now...was:  "Canada proposes
to develop jointly with the Band a phased planned for an agricultural venture.

Federal members of the joint plan will come from Indian Affairs, the Native
Economic Development Program, Canada Employment and Immigration Commission,
Agriculture Canada and the Western Diversification Fund.  Aspects that the
joint team will examine are the potential development of a cow/calf operation;
the clearing of land -- they're going to examine the potential of that, the
possibility of that; the definition of suitable crops -- which the Lubicons
have worked years to define with qualified people; productive capacity of the
Band -- by which they mean whether the Band can actually do the things the
Band is proposing to do; and then environmental impacts...This was the
government's proposal to settle Lubicon land rights in this area.  

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

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

Don Aitken:  Thank you, Michael.  First of all, Bernard, I'd like to thank you
for coming and I'd like to thank the Elders and other members of the Lubicon
Lake Nation for coming here.  We know it isn't easy.  We're not just down the
street from you.  I'm sure sometimes you're quite thankful of that.  You had
mentioned a number of really important issues today.  One of the first ones
that you mentioned I'd just like to address.  When you were asked about who
are the Lubicons you talked about being a poor bush Indian from northern
Alberta and then talked about when oil was found and the Lubicons were in the
way.  In spite of that for many years you've survived on the land.  One of the
issues that I read in the proposals from your side has to deal with the land
and the natural resources, the surface and the sub-surface rights, the mineral
rights.  I think you've made it quite clear that in fact there's been a loss
of hunting and trapping opportunities and certainly economic loss as a result
of not having control of those mineral rights.  I wonder if in fact you could
give us some idea as to what you see then as a loss?  What that loss has been?

Just in the time since you've started to put this argument forward?  I'm sure
that the argument initially was substantial.  How much has it increased since
then?  How we can have an opportunity to understand what has been lost almost
on a daily basis and how the longer that no agreement is there the more loss
there is and the more reason for an urgent settlement of this dispute?

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

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

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

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

For example, again, we've asked a lot of questions as to what is going to
happen, because we know it's going to take certain things to prevent certain
things.  We know that, for example, if the poison gets into the food chain of
the wildlife it's going to come back to haunt us, at which point we don't
know.  We ask these questions.  For example, all the pollution in the air gets
into the leaves, then the moose eat the leaves, does it get into their system
that way?  Then we in turn eat the moose.  Or if it gets into the fish through
the water, then those fish go up and down the streams into our area.  It gets
into the fish, does it get into the bear?  And if it gets into the bear, how
far up that food chain does it go?  Our people are dependent on this wildlife.

Does it get into the beaver once it gets into these streams?  These are all
serious questions that we've been asking and nobody's been able to answer.  

The reason I'm bring all this up is that a lot of these things tie in together
at some point as to how we survive and also in order to try and keep that tie,
we looked at trying to put a package together from our perspective hoping that
our people are going to succeed in the different areas that we hope to pursue.

We haven't really concentrated on maybe it's going to cost too much for the
government to put in this money.  But they're stealing our resource from us 24
hours a day.  For how many years have they extracted billions of dollars off
our land.  That's outright stealing.  The Getty Government, Getty himself has
stated time after time that he doesn't want to deal with law-breakers and so
on.  Maybe that's why we don't have our settlement because who is breaking the
law more so than the government?  It's the governments who are outright
stealing and there's absolutely no reason for that.  

For us to be able to build a future after the destruction that has taken place
to our way of life, and it's not our choice, this is all forced onto us.  If
we had a choice we would go back to the way we were.  But that isn't possible.

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

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

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

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


(Continued in next message)