Jacques Johnson: I have a question in regards to the possibility of the Lubicons going to court to fight for compensation. I have, in two documents from the federal government, that they may do this. One is that Communique that I referred to earlier put out by Ken Colby, federal spokesperson, where, on page 2, the top paragraph, it says: "The Hon. Bill McKnight, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said the band also rejected an offer to begin construction of the community immediately, without prejudice to the band's right to take the compensation issue to the Federal Court for decision." So here it seems to indicate that the Band is free to take the federal government to court to settle the compensation issue. Another statement by the Minister, and that's page 2 in our Red Book, and the conclusion is that the Band would still be free to sue Canada and/or Alberta for compensation -- these are the words of Mr. McKnight. However, when we read the proposal, the final offer by Canada to the Lubicon Band, we read in clause 8, point 7: "in consideration of the rights and benefits provided by this offer, the Band and such persons who are entitled to adhere to Treaty Number 8, through the Chief and Council of the Band: "a.) will cede, release and surrender to Her Majesty In Right of Canada: "1.) all their aboriginal claims, rights, titles and interests in and to lands and waters anywhere within Canada; and "2.) all their claims, rights or causes or actions whether collective or individual which they ever had, now have or may hereafter have under or arising out of or by reason of Treaty 8, save as hereafter specifically provided; "3.) all their claims, rights or causes of action (cause of action meaning really taking the federal government to court) whether collective or individual which they ever had or now have as alleged in the legal actions referred to in paragraph 8.8 and 8.9 of this offer; "4.) all their claims, rights or causes of action which they ever had, now have or may have hereafter, or arising out of or by reason of any Imperial or Canadian legislation or Order in Council or other action of the Governor in Council or Canada in relation to Metis or half-breed scrip or money for scrip; "b.) will agree, on their behalf and on behalf of their heirs, descendants and successors not to assert any cause of action, action for a declaration, claim or demand of whatever kind or nature which they ever had, now have or may hereafter have against Her Majesty In Right of Canada or any province, or the government of any Territory or any person based on any claim, right, title or interests described in (a)." Anyway, this very complex and legalese type of release all lead to one thing, which is to deny the rights of the Lubicons to take the federal government to court. On the one hand, you hear the Minister of Indian Affairs saying that they are free to take the federal government and even the provincial government to court to settle the compensation issues. And their spokesperson Ken Colby reasserts the same thing. But when you look in the official documents that the federal government would like to have the Lubicons sign, legal recourse is totally denied them. So I would like to really ask the government how they reconcile those two positions, which to me seem very contradictory. I don't know if anybody has anything to add or ask about this issue. Michael Asch: One thing I know is that the wording that you see there is common wording on all claims agreements. My understanding is that what they're saying is that in return for whatever is specifically here you agree never to sue us again on this subject. It doesn't have anything to do with what would happen before. It has to do with what would happen after. And just to piggy-back a little on yours, I would like to know whether in light of the fact that, for example, in the James Bay case, there's been a lot of litigation for non-fulfilment of promises made; to what extent would this be open in the Lubicon case should the government not fulfil -- that goes back to the "may" words that you pointed out in your first round of questions -- "may" provide this, "may" provide that, it doesn't give them much to actually sue over if they sign this agreement, because it doesn't say that the government will do anything. Menno Wiebe: Your questions, Jacques, may point back to Don's earlier questions as to whether 1939 did establish recognition of a reserve. You shook me up a little bit when you asked that question because I've paged back into the documentation on that and it actually talks about making application to, or it was recommended that they be regarded as having Band status, but I don't know if we have a record that this actually occurred. So when all the chips are down, when all the legal paths have been pursued, somebody could pull the rug out and say they don't have band status, so on the basis of what are they making this claim. So maybe your question is something that we ought to research and establish firmly. Surely somebody would have the answer. Whether they did receive band status. Maybe I'm revealing my great ignorance here. Sandy Day: This goes a bit with yours, Menno. Have any benefits been received by the Lubicon people? I'd like to ask the government if so, what they have received. We heard from Bernard at the last hearing that there has been some minimal health care looked after, and a few houses, I believe, if I remember correctly. I don't know what goes beyond that. I'd like to ask them what have they received so far. Jennifer Klimek: Do any of the Commissioners have any further questions right now? Don Aitken: Just further to the comments that I made before about winners and losers in this. The fact that there is still being oil pumped out of there, and in fact there is timber still being cut and the fact that, as I understand it, the Lubicons have in fact said they don't necessarily want to have, or would be willing to not necessarily deal with or want to take over the oil wells that are on there but they want to have a say in the future -- one way that perhaps pressure could be brought to bear would be a moratorium on any of the profits or taxes that are levied, and that it all be put into a trust fund -- that any profits or royalties that are forthcoming from that land be put into a trust fund and held for a period, until such time as it is resolved, which of course would then mean that there would be something to gain by the other side to get this thing resolved. But that may just be the lever that would help to say it's in both sides' interest to resolve this. As long as the land is being raped and profits are being reaped, there is no reason to solve it. So if we can get a moratorium put on the development or on any profits being taken out, even if the land continued to be exploited -- that that money be held in trust and not be distributed until after this has been resolved. I think that may be one of the ways of getting some leverage there. Jacques Johnson: I have a question to Michael here, maybe he can help us here, because you've been involved in the negotiations with the Dene people, I believe. Has there been any settlement made by them with the people in the Northwest Territories in recent years that you could describe as being a comprehensive settlement, even though these people may have already signed Treaty 11 before? Michael Asch: Yes, in fact in the proposed settlement that the Dene as a whole rejected there was work done to try to accommodate the fact that this was either fulfilment of the terms of Treaty 11 or this was something entire new. That is, the attempt was to create the possibility that people who had signed the treaty could be signing another document, which is a comprehensive claims agreement, which then could be interpreted as being further elaboration of what was in the treaty or might be interpreted as being an entirely new thing. So it's not impossible to do that, if there's a will. Jacques Johnson: Has it ever been done so far? Michael Asch: ...I haven't seen the agreement that the Gwich'in signed so I can't say. But I would imagine that the language that was used there would not be much different from the proposed agreement that I did see. Jacques Johnson: I have a further question. Why would it be then if the government has actually done that with the people who had previously signed treaty that they would at the same time be so adamant in denying a comprehensive settlement to a people in Alberta who have never even signed treaty? Michael Asch: I think you'd really have to ask them. I really don't know the answer to that. The only thing that I could say, and it's not responsive but I think it's a good point to make at this point, is that in the Northwest Territories the caveat case proceeded to conclusion. The trial judge said yes, not withstanding the fact that...(change tapes)...were extinguished. At the same time this treaty was signed in 1921, and I -- meaning Judge Morrow -- have listened to Chiefs who signed the treaty and they say that isn't what they signed. They signed a peace and friendship treaty and it had nothing to do with ceding the land. And so there really is something to bring forward to court. And it was in the context of an uncertainty as to what the actual terms of Treaty 11 were -- that is, there were two points of view that were clearly articulated -- that was one of the issues that drove the federal government, I would believe, to say, well, let's start all over and work out some agreements so that nobody ever goes to court with this stuff (Editorial Note: Part of the NWT is also covered by Treaty 8). Now at the same time, as I say, the Province of Alberta passed retroactive legislation not allowing the Lubicons and the other Isolated Communities the very same here -- that is, not withstanding the fact that there was an existing Treaty 8, which they hadn't signed; and not withstanding that there was such a treaty, they still had unextinguished rights to land and perhaps -- well, let's just say unextinguished rights to land in the political and economic sense -- but unextinguished rights to land and that these needed to be dealt with. So they could file caveats on lands in northern Alberta warning property owners that there may be an unextinguished interest. I think right there was a lever that was absolutely central to the Dene case that was taken away. Jennifer Klimek: I have one further question. The government has described their offer as being "generous", in their words, and I'd be interested in knowing how they come to that conclusion. Does it compare with other offers? If so, what are those other offers? Secondly, are they concerned about -- if they settle this -- that it's going to be a precedent for other land claims? Is that one of the reasons why they're not settling it, or is that a problem that they perceive at all, or is it a case by case thing, and if they settle this one it will have no impact on others, on a case by case basis? Are there any other questions from any of the other Commissioners? Sandy Day: I have just a couple of questions that I would like to ask the provincial government. The first is that my readings from Dick Fowler was in Little Buffalo recently, he stated that the provincial government would stand by the Grimshaw Agreement and I would like to ask for confirmation of that. And if they have any intent to raise the dollars from the 1988 figures, dollar figures that were agreed on, up to 1992 dollar figures for a settlement. I'd also like to ask about areas of compensation in that the provincial government doesn't, from my reading, feel that there is any compensation owing. I would like to ask them about that especially in retrospect with some of the items that were brought up about the amount of money that has been taken out of there to benefit Alberta. I'd also like to ask about the vocational school that they stated in the past would have to be set up outside of the reserve area. I would like to have specifics in the area that we could negotiate on with the importance of keeping it within the reserve. Jennifer Klimek: Any further questions? I think we've concluded what we see are the concerns that arise from the written documents. I think you can see there are a lot of unanswered questions that the Commission would like to have addressed. Until we get those addressed we're not going to be able to fully appreciate what the federal and provincial governments put forward. As far as the public hearings, they'll resume at 1:30 when Bill Phipps from the Taskforce of Churches presents to the Commission. We'd like to invite you all to come back at that time for his presentation. We'll adjourn for now until then. For the record of the people who are here today, we have received two written submissions -- one from the Mennonite Central Committee and one from the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility -- and we'd like to read these aloud at this time. Menno will read the one from the Mennonite Central Committee now. Menno Wiebe: This is a communication from June 26 to Father Jacques Johnson. The cover letter goes as follows: "Dear Rev. Johnson: "As a provincial body, the Mennonite Central Committee (Alberta) would like to commend the Commission for giving attention to the Lubicon - Government negotiations. MCC Alberta would like to offer support to the Lubicon Cree and therefore we would request that you read the attached brief to the entire Commission members on our behalf. "We thank you for your assistance in sharing our concerns. "Sincerely, Bill Janzen, Executive Director, Mennonite Central Committee, Alberta" Here is the communication to the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review: "Dear Commission Members: "Mennonite Central Committee Alberta would like to thank the Commission for their attention to the Lubicon-Government negotiations. We understand that one of the firm, non-negotiable components of the Lubicon counter-offer is a request for those who brought their former economy to a stand-still to know generate an alternative long-range economy. This alternative economy could include both an agricultural component and a forestry component. The Mennonite Central Committee would like to express its support for an alternative economy of this nature for the Lubicon Cree. "We would like to also express our willingness to work at close range with the Lubicon in the development of agriculture and forestry alternatives. In the past, MCC has been involved with the Lubicons in the areas of gardening, agriculture surveys, health assessments and justice advocacy. This summer we have two young men living in the Little Buffalo community and working at the gardening projects and community development. "As an organization we have had past experience in working in communities, both in Canada and overseas, to establish long-range alternative economic possibilities. In the area of agriculture, we have had extensive overseas experience as well as an Alberta constituency with a strong agricultural background. We are also involved in economic development in the area of forestry with other Native communities in Canada. Currently we are working with the Chief and Council of Buffalo Narrows Band in Kenora, Ontario to organize a lumber industry which is environmentally responsible and that benefits the community itself. "MCC strongly believes that the Lubicon Cree need to establish a viable alternative economy. Their current dependency on welfare is extremely destructive. We therefore would offer our support to the Lubicon Cree in mutually exploring concrete alternatives which would provide an alternative long-range economy. "We appreciate your willingness to consider our request. "Sincerely, Bill Janzen, Executive Director, MCC Alberta." Jennifer Klimek: We've also received a letter from the Taskforce on Churches and Corporate Responsibility dated June 24, 1992, addressed to the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review, c/o Father Jacques Johnson. "Dear Commissioners: "The Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility is a national ecumenical coalition of the major Christian churches in Canada. Its role is to assist its members in implementing policies adopted by them in the area of corporate social responsibility (list of members appended). "In 1983, the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation appealed to Canadian churches for support in their struggle for recognition of their aboriginal rights. In response, the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility has raised concerns with industry and government for nearly a decade about the effects on the band of industrial development within its traditional territory. "Through correspondence, meetings with management, and participation in shareholder meetings, the Taskforce has persistently encouraged companies in the energy and forest sectors to respect Lubicon aboriginal land rights. This is consistent with Canadian church policies that call for no new major industrial development on unsurrendered land until either native land claims are settled, or until terms governing that development are negotiated satisfactorily with the native people concerned. "Although the primary concern of the Taskforce is corporate social responsibility, with respect to the Lubicon, we have viewed corporate actions within the framework of provincial and federal government policies. Based on our experience with corporations, the provincial and federal governments, and the Lubicon, we believe any consideration of the federal government's settlement offer and the Lubicon's response should take into account the following points. "The social, cultural and environmental consequences of industrial development have been severe on the Lubicon and their traditional territory. This was pointed out as early as 1983 by a World Council of Churches study. Under these circumstances, the Taskforce has sought changes in corporate practices, while simultaneously urging the federal and provincial governments to quickly reach a just settlement. While none of the corporations so addressed agreed to cease their development activities until the land claim was settled, some began discussion of environmental and jurisdictional questions with the Lubicon. "The failure to reach a timely resolution of this matter has imposed extreme hardship on the Lubicon while governments and industry have carried on relatively undisturbed. While significant financial advantages have flowed to both government and industry, the Lubicon have experienced social, cultural and economic disruption, including in particular the serious decline of traditional resources. "Therefore, as you examine and compare the federal government's proposed settlement and the Lubicon response, we hope you will consider the following elements, which we consider essential to a just settlement: "1. the Lubicon should be provided with an adequate land base; "2. the Lubicon should receive support adequate to achieve self- sufficiency; and "3. past and present benefits derived by the federal and provincial governments and private enterprise from natural resources extraction should be taken into account. "Financial compensation for past resource extraction and special economic development funding are two important elements included in the Lubicon proposal but missing from the federal government offer. The federal government offer thus ignores the significant private and public benefits that have been derived from natural resource sales while imposing social, cultural and economic costs on the Lubicon. "We wish you well in your task and hope the results of your work will speed a just and final settlement. "Sincerely, Rev. Dr. Ray Hodgson, Chairperson" This concludes our morning session and we will reconvene at 1:30. Menno Wiebe: I would like to ask a question on procedure. What was the thinking of the other members of the Commission here about making interim recommendations from this Commission? I'm not sure whether we're operating on the assumption that we wait until it's all complete and we put all our information together and then make recommendations. What would be your feelings if we made interim recommendations? Could that be picked up later so that I could table this question for later on? Jennifer Klimek: I think we should probably table it. If anybody else wants to discuss that we'll put it in our agenda for the long-term plans. Menno Wiebe: That would be satisfactory to me. Don Aitken: I would suggest that having received these two presentations that we acknowledge the receipt of them to the presenters and mention that they'll be taken into consideration and that in fact they fall very much in line with some of the questions that were asked this morning. I think one thing in particular just speaking to the submissions -- both of which I thought were quite good and quite to the point -- was one of the questions that I had suggested with respect to a moratorium on profits; but I think another point that was very appropriate here is that no new major industrial development be done. I think that's also an important point that they have made here, which complements I think a number of the points that we've made this morning. Jennifer Klimek: One further comment I'd like to make on Don's is that I think one thing we did want to ask of the federal government is why there isn't any firm economic proposal in their agreement for the Lubicons, and how they perceive these people surviving if they accept what the government has offered them. Sandy Day: Particularly in light of their geographical location, I think it's important that that be taken into consideration as well, because they are in an isolated area. Jennifer Klimek: I would like now to finally adjourn this morning's session and we will resume at 1:30. Thank you. Jacques Johnson: I'm very happy to welcome all of you here for the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review hearing this afternoon, the 29th. Please feel at home. There is coffee and tea up front. Please help yourself any time. I would like to introduce the members of the Commission that are sitting this afternoon. On left is the co-chair Jennifer Klimek. Then Sandy Day from High River, Alberta. Rev. Menno Wiebe from the Mennonite Committee in Winnipeg. Don Aitken, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour. Myself, Jacques Johnson of the Missionary Oblates. We are indeed very privileged this afternoon to have among us a real, live guest. We missed the live guests this morning. The federal and provincial governments have refused to appear before us. We felt very dejected for a few minutes but then with the sharing of issues and questions, we were able to surface a lot of very interesting points that we will find some way of bringing to our elected government officials down the road. But we somewhat buoyed up to have the presence of Bill Phipps this afternoon. He is a member of the United Church and a very respected member indeed as the Secretary-General, or something of that nature -- Executive Secretary, which is the equivalent of Bishop in our Church. So we value greatly your desire to appear before our Commission today, Bill. I'd like to recall that a couple of years ago or so Bill phoned me up and twisted my arm a little bit and I agreed to meet. I had breakfast with him with two of his honored guests -- Mr. Malone, chief negotiator for the federal government and his sidekick, Mr. Colby, who was I think a PR person at the time, for the federal government. And we had a long breakfast and the conclusion of our discussions with them was: "Why don't you churches," Mr. Malone told us, "put together some kind of a process whereby maybe through a person -- in particular -- you could come up with a third opinion." I don't know if he really meant like a legal binding arbitrator. But that was his suggestion. Bill looked into it and phoned the former Judge Berger in Vancouver. We explored the responsibilities, but it didn't seem to be a very sound one at the time. But then came the idea of the Commission and I think the Commission is indeed trying to be that honest broker between the Lubicons and the federal government and the provincial government in bringing about a resolution to this long drawn-out negotiation process. So I know that Bill is a very interested party in regard to the Lubicons, by this pressure on Prime Minister Mulroney that this breakfast took place. I would like to now invite Bill Phipps on behalf of the Church group that went to visit the Lubicons about 2 or 3 weeks ago to report to us. Thank you. Bill Phipps: Thank you very much. Thanks Jacques. That certainly was a good breakfast. I want you all -- I forget who paid for it. Jacques Johnson: Malone did. Bill Phipps: Oh boy, we're probably in his pocket then. It's good to be here. I guess the first thing I wanted to do is thank whoever thought up the idea to have an independent Commission, because we do need something that has not been tried, some group of people with some independence to try to break open the negotiations and try to get this 53 year matter settled. I guess in my capacity here I want to represent a number of people. One is in the trip that we took to Little Buffalo a couple of weeks ago I was officially representing the Moderator of the United Church of Canada. I think that's only important in the sense that I am here to represent the whole United Church of Canada nationally, as well as in my capacity as Executive Secretary of the Alberta and Northwest Conference of the Church, which is one of our regional expressions. The other group is the Edmonton Interchurch Committee for Aboriginal Rights. Our chairperson John Stellingwerff is also here. I hope he will speak a little bit later. The Interchurch Committee is associated with the Aboriginal Rights Coalition nationally, which is a coalition of churches and aboriginal people trying to be in solidarity on aboriginal issues throughout the country. So I think that the people we represent are not just ourselves and not just churches in this part of Canada, but the ecumenical movement of churches throughout the country. So it's with that kind of representation that I speak. I think for the record it's probably also important to reiterate some of the involvements over the years. I guess we first became involved in 1984 when the church leaders went up to Little Buffalo in response to the World Council of Churches initiatives when they were meeting in Vancouver. Ever since then we've been involved in all kinds of different lobbying activities, ecumenically as well as on behalf of the United Church. We've been involved twice in Little Buffalo, participated in many public rallies here in Edmonton and Calgary and other places, educational events at churches and other places, preaching, articles and I would even say pastoral care of some people in the Lubicon Nation. Jacques has already mentioned our meeting with Malone, but we've also met with other government people. In fact I remember meeting with a couple of Bishops -- Bishop Sjoberg and Bishop Clark -- with Ken Colby when he was working for Norcen back in 1984. So there're a whole series of involvements and relationship over the time, and the involvement has been pretty extensive over this period. I do have our press statement which we gave to the press, released after our visit a couple of weeks ago -- I'll leave that with you -- where we discovered, no surprise to you, that the conditions have deteriorated substantially since 1984. Kids dropping out of school. Much more abuse of alcohol. Unemployment. All the kinds of community deterioration that you would expect of people who have been living under such dreadful pressure without much in the way of economic activity for so long. I guess it was surprising to me that they were in as good shape as they were. They were able to put on a community meal for us. Then 35 or so people stayed around afterwards to talk to us. To me that's pretty significant when you're in such a demoralized and depressing state physically, mentally and spiritually -- in all ways. And I think we were re-confirmed in the observation of the loss of culture, the loss of a way of life, the loss of what is meaningful, what gives their life meaning. I started to imagine what it would be like for myself. I don't think people understand what that means very well. At least, I have a hard time trying to interpret it to people. I think of myself as a totally urban person. Edmonton's the smallest place I've ever lived. And if I was taken from my job and my home and everything that I know and put in the middle of Little Buffalo or someplace else like that, and dropped there, and they said: "Okay, have fun. See you later". And I had to survive -- not only survive but be taken completely out of all my socialization, all my contacts, everything that gives meaning to my life, the whole bit, and just dropped there. I don't think I'd last -- I don't know how long a human body lasts -- but I wouldn't last very long. It's that kind of total change of environment and context that we are witnessing. I think for people to understand that -- and maybe when we talk to government people we have to say the same kind of thing -- you be dropped someplace without any resources and in fact your resources taken away from you and see how you make out for 50 years or for however long it takes. I think we have to realize that it's only within the last 15 or so years that there has been the total invasion from the south, total invasion of the non-native society into that community. That's only a third of my lifetime ago. You have to put it in that kind of context that here are people whose whole way of life has been invaded and destroyed and the occupiers and still there doing what they know how to do. I think in some ways genocide may be too strong a word. I know it's a word we always debate using in things like press releases. Do we say genocide or not? How will people take it? Are we exaggerating? Well, maybe. I don't know. I'm not a sociologist or an anthropologist. It may not be genocide, but it's damn close to it. It's damn close to doing away with everything that makes a culture be what it is, be who it is. And by some people's definition it would be genocide. And it's a very slow process. We're not lining them up by the trees and executing them. We're just slowly doing it -- drip by drip by drop. I think personally, and I think the churches feel that the delay in settling this has been a total disgrace, not just on behalf of governments but on behalf of all of us, for somehow not being able to have the political will to settle. If one is cynical you would have to say that the whole idea is to get the resources out of the ground before there's a settlement. Let's steal everything there is to steal, that's worth anything to the non-native economic world. And then after we take it all and it's all destroyed -- Oh, gee, we've found a solution, when it's of no use to our society any more. If you're cynical you'd say that. So I guess when you write your report, when you've heard from people, how cynical you want to be or how accurate that in fact is, as to why this has taken so long. You'd also have to think that there's some sort of a divide and conquer thing here. I mean, the creation of the Woodland Cree and so on, so instantly, that makes one thing clear: there's not only a benign thing here, there's an active policy which is trying to destroy those people. 53 years is too long. We could talk longer about that, but I know you've heard that kind of testimony from people. I do want to pay a compliment, and that is a compliment to the Premier of Alberta who a number of years ago, I think, took some political risk in sitting down himself with the Chief and trying to come to some understanding. I know I'm pretty naive in some of these things in political ways, but I think that Don Getty took some political risks in doing that. I think there was some actual communication probably between those two people as they sat down together, and it looked like there was the beginning of progress, the beginning of a settlement. I think everybody was feeling very positive about that...(change tapes)...to Getty since then. I think it's too bad. I think he could still be exercising some political leadership like he did at that point. But I do want to say that the whole story hasn't been entirely bad from the political side. I think somebody tried to take some initiative, but for whatever reason, it didn't go far enough or it didn't go very far at all. Now to move on to the proposal, I'm not going to go through the Lubicon Nation proposal. You've got it and you've heard their arguments. But as a lay person reading it, and reading it a number of times and trying to understand it, it seems to make sense. Now maybe there's all kinds of reasons why it doesn't make sense or it's too much or it's off the mark. But it seems to make sense to me. I guess what I don't understand is we have not seen a valid government response to it. We've seen a government proposal or a government idea but we haven't seen them go through the thing and say, "Well, we agree with this, we agree with this, these figures are totally unrealistic if you're trying to establish this kind of an agricultural thing." We haven't seen them say point by point what is wrong with the Lubicon proposal. So I'd ask the question what is the government's opinion with respect to the specific economic ideas put forth by the Lubicon people. I think the burden of proof now is on the government to say these ideas don't make any sense, or they do. What is their opinion about it? Why are the Lubicon numbers too high? I mean, if they certainly agree on schools and roads and houses and stuff like that, why are the figures too high for developing some of the jobs they're trying to develop and the training programs they're trying to develop? Are those number unrealistic or what? The other question about that has to do with Fulton's report. What ever happened with his recommendations? I mean, I still don't really understand, and I haven't heard a valid explanation from anybody -- I've talked with some of the Lubicon advisors and I know what their opinion is -- but I haven't heard why the Fulton recommendations -- I haven't heard exactly...why they were rejected by the very government that asked him to do his work. So I think in terms of your job, the public -- because it's been a very public issue -- has a right to know these specifics. What is specifically wrong with the Lubicon proposals? What specifically happened with Fulton's report and why was it not accepted? What were the problems with it? I know one of the things the government says is they're concerned about a precedent and paying the Lubicon people more than the going rate. Well, first of all, I don't think in my limited understanding of how the land claims process is going throughout Canada, I don't think there is such a thing as a going rate. I mean, I know if you look at the per capita amount that they're offering the Lubicon people, or what the Lubicon people are demanding, it's quite a bit more than the per capita rate that the COPE agreement gave in the Yukon Territory, the Yukon/Northwest Territories. But they are totally different situations. They're totally different people. Their economic proposals are different, etc. There's no such thing as a going rate. You could say per capita the Inuit should receive exactly the same as the Haida, as the Mohawk, as the Lubicon -- that doesn't make any sense. Now, I can understand where the government is saying they do have relationships to each other. And we have to not be way out of whack on some of our settlements compared to others. But that shouldn't be that hard to do. It doesn't take 7 years or whatever it is to sit down and look at the agreements publicly, you know, and say -- all right, these folks got these under these circumstances with these proposals and why. I mean, you put a wall chart there and you start looking at it and you start making your comparisons and you try to be just and fair. It doesn't take genius to do it. Why hasn't that been done? If that's their concern, the precedent thing, why hasn't that been done, so we can actually compare them and we can say -- gee, your right. This is way out of line. I think the reason they haven't done it is because it's not probably (the case). But I think that's a valid thing to ask. It does not take a genius to do those comparative things. Why haven't they done it? Since the land base does not seem to be an issue -- at least I understand that it's not a big issue now -- the dollars in some way should be compromised and both sides seem to be locked into the same kind of dollars that they had way back when. Now I want to just put forth a thing about the money that's been taken out. I know that there are different jurisdictions and I understand the differences between federal jurisdiction and power and provincial jurisdiction and power and all of that stuff. Our governments have different mandates and authorities. But the fact is the oil companies, the resource companies, have taken out -- as I understand it and nobody has disputed this -- at this point, in 1992, in the neighbourhood of $6 billion from Lubicon traditional lands. Now nobody has disputed that when it appears in the press or anywhere else. So I'm taking that that's fairly accurate. Now the provincial government in terms of the royalties -- and again, nobody has disputed this -- therefore have realized more than a billion dollars. That's you and me as taxpayers of this province. We have realized a profit of over a billion dollars from traditional Lubicon lands. Now it seems to me that nobody is arguing particularly that our system or us because as taxpayers we're beneficiaries of the royalties, we have destroyed a group of peoples' livelihood, we've destroyed their culture, we've destroyed their way of life, we've destroyed their soul, we've taken all these things for a huge financial reward for us. It's cost an awful lot to do. I'm talking about human lives and souls and all that. I hope you realize how important that is. But monetarily as well. It's cost them a lot and we have benefitted a tremendous amount, and they've gained nothing in terms of financial rewards. They're asking for in the neighbourhood of $170 million, give or take a few million, or two or three. As I calculate it, $170 million is 2.3% of $6 billion. Now in investment terms they are therefore asking very little. In terms of the investment on their land, even if the federal government and the province together agreed on $170 million, that's still only a 2.3% return on the resources on their land. Just talking strictly financially. I don't think there's anybody -- let alone anybody in Mulroney's Cabinet or in Don Getty's Cabinet -- who would accept that kind of return on their money. I could make a quip about NovaTel but that's probably not appropriate right here. But who accepts 2.3% return on their money? Nobody. And that's strictly financially -- forget about human lives and all the things that are far more important than money. Strictly financially, that's the only return that they're asking for. It's peanuts compared to what the resource companies have achieved and what we as taxpayers have achieved. So it seems to me therefore that if the federal government kept their $45 or $50 million proposal on the table, why couldn't the province provide $100 million for investment in economic development as payment for the totally destroyed way of life and economy of the people. $100 million out of $1 billion is not a lot of money. That kind of thing seems fairly logical to me. Now I know the province and all the jurisdictional stuff -- that they're not involved in this. But it seems to me in logical terms and in terms of whose benefitted from these lands financially, that the province should be involved and that somehow the package, the comprehensive agreement should involve provincial monies as well as federal monies. Lastly, now beyond all the legal and economic and social arguments that one can advance -- and I guess I'm assuming that you've got all the documentation and that you've heard all those things so you don't need me to pull out my briefcase and go through it again -- but beyond all of those kinds of arguments that we can advance there are strong moral grounds -- and I think our society can still talk about moral grounds for things, I don't think we're beyond that yet. At least I hope not. But there are strong moral grounds for going far beyond strict dollars to rectify centuries of injustices. There's no question that Canada has the resources, even though the jury is out on our moral fibre to use them appropriately. But we have the resources to truly recognize historical truths and embark upon a new covenant with the First Peoples. This has echoes of what the Church has ecumenically and nationally been asking for for quite some years. But I wanted to put it in to this particular case in point. When the Churches talk about a new covenant with the First Nations, they're not just talking theory somewhere, they're talking about that being applied in specific settlements with specific Nations, specific people. And this is one case which has to be solved. Continuous erosion of spirit, let alone economic, social and cultural life, is immoral and impractical. The social, economic costs if you want to add them up in dollars again to the total Canadian society is much worse than the few dollars it will cost to make a settlement. It can only lead to further disaster and worse violence than has already been done. And the violence in all its forms -- think of any violent form you want, whether it's kids committing suicide or abuse in the home or psychological violence, I don't care -- all the kinds of violence you can envisage are going on there. My hope is that the Commission, that you can find a just compromise which gives all sides an honorable way through the impasse. Not an honorable way out. Not just a way to save face for past wrongs. But an honorable way through the impasse so that an agreement can be reached. I guess I've found out the answer. I was going to ask whether the government representatives from both levels of government are going to appear before you, and if not, why not. I would like to know that. The public is entitled to know why they did not appear, in some detail why they are not here. It seems to me that their appearance would confirm their good faith. If they are really sincerely wanting to solve this thing, they would appear before a body of citizens giving their time and their energy and their intellect and everything else to try to resolve it. If they would appear before you, I think it's an insult actually to -- not just yourselves because it's your time your taking up -- but to all of us who are trying to solve this, they're not being here. Their non-appearance seems to indicate they are not willing to budge. Is that true? I think they have to tell us. That the slow steady deterioration is of little importance to them -- is that true? This Commission I think offers both sides an opportunity to listen to each other and to welcome independent insight so that a solution can be found. Surely the imagination, the reason, the sense of fairness and justice required can be found so that this disgrace can be transformed into a new beginning for the Lubicon people. Thank you. I don't know whether your custom is to ask any questions or how to proceed.