Jacques Johnson: First of all, I would like to thank you very much, Bill Phipps, on behalf of the Lubicon Settlement Commission. Yes, it is our practice to ask questions. I would like to turn the mike over to my colleagues here. Jennifer Klimek: Mr. Phipps, I have one question for you. Have the church groups had any direct dialogue with the government on any of your concerns or has it been through the media? What have you done in that vein? Bill Phipps: I think most of the dialogue has been through correspondence. I know that our Church has passed many resolutions both at the national and regional level and of course everytime we do we send them off to the Minister with copies to the Opposition Leaders and appropriate people. We get back -- sometimes in the early days we got back almost as much documentation as we get from Fred Lennarson every week -- that's supposed to be a joke, because we have to get new file space because of all the documentation that the Lubicon people provide. More recently the answers are more terse and we don't get back as much documentation and part of the reason for that I guess is that there isn't that much more beyond the last 3 years -- not much has happened in terms of more documentation. But it's mainly been by way of correspondence back and forth other than this meeting with the lawyers which Jacques and I were part of. And, you know, catching somebody at a rally or something like that. The same goes for the provincial people. It's mainly by way of correspondence. But a lot of it. A lot of correspondence back and forth over the years. Sandy Day: Carrying on in that vein, did you send something from your recent trip? Bill Phipps: Send something to them? Sandy Day: Yes. Bill Phipps: Yes. I'm going to leave this. Have you already got this? I'll leave it with you anyway. You can copy it. I wrote to Mr. Siddon with copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democrat Party in Ottawa as well as a copy to the Prime Minister, stating the background for the visit, why we were there, reminding them of our history over the thing, our current press release -- in fact thanking Siddon saying I'm glad you went up there. I think he could have looked around the community a little more and we can criticize his visit in a variety of ways but the fact is he's the first federal Minister to go there. That's a good step. Why don't you come to the Commission. It looks like there's a little bit of opportunity there. We're tried to encourage him as much as possible, as well as bring him up to date on our views. I sent the same material to Don Getty and to the appropriate Opposition parties. Menno Wiebe: Bill, part of what we think the Commission is learning -- not to jump ahead too fast -- is that there may be economic and political reasons for delay, the delay may be to the advantage of one party or another. So we're trying to sort that out. You participated in the Lubicon blockade in October of 1988. That was a means of arresting the attention, the assertion of jurisdiction on Lubicon land. Could you give us a little feedback in terms of that as a means of prodding or speeding up negotiations. You did talk about the Grimshaw Agreement. I would like to hear a little more interpretation of that event from you closer to the scene than some of us were. Bill Phipps: Well, you were there too. But in some ways that's a hard question to respond to, because I've felt in my political activism that's rooted in what I hope is my ethical understanding of things, that something like that would be enough to draw the attention of not only the public but government people and so on to come to the table seriously. You look back at all the different kinds of things you do -- all the way from letter writing and phone calls and blockading the land to boycotts of Daishowa or whatever -- you look at all the different tactics you use and all the legal routes you take and you look back on this and you say what the hell difference did it make. I mean, one difference it made I suppose is that we're still here and we haven't forgotten about the Lubicon people and their plight. But we're no closer to a settlement now than we were four or five years ago. Maybe I'm getting off what you wanted me to talk about in your question, but it reminds me of my amazement, my absolute amazement at the patience and the fact that the Lubicon folks would hang in there this long with this non-native, non- system that we have of listening and responding to people. I mean, you could almost say that in almost any other country in the world, there would have been some severe semi-military violence. Like it's -- you sit down with Bernard, and I am just amazed at the person. The fact that he would even still talk to anybody whose non-native because of what I represent. I mean every time I sit down with him or visit with any of the Lubicon people it's almost embarrassing -- and not because I don't think I'm a decent person -- but I represent a society to him surely whose sense of morality and decency is almost zero. Why do they even bother with people like us. So when I look at tactics like that, it's almost in desperation, you almost say -- gee, we've got to find some way short of that semi-military thing, of getting people's attention. What do you have to do. So when I look back on that I think that was a tactic that got a little bit of attention for a while. The press was there. This was wonderful. We're all excited because it might appear on the CBC National. The CBC Journal might interview you for 2 or 3 minutes. That's great. What's the result? So here we are trying to find other tactics to get attention. I don't know if that's what you were fishing for or not. Menno Wiebe: This Commission is searching for ways that will break the impasse. Do you have some guidance for us based on that and subsequent experiences, or suggestions that could be taken by this Commission. I think of the fact that there were 13 countries represented at the Lubicon blockade. It was highly international. You had representation by the major churches of Canada, representing actually a substantial population. So there was ecumenical action. The churches were together speaking with one voice on this. You had the international press empathetic, sympathetic to the case. We have in our country formal procedures, processes, MLAs, MPs, we have courts, we have a whole department called Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The existing structures seem not to be accommodating the issue of the Lubicon. So from your position here in Edmonton, and from your Interchurch group, do you see some other mechanisms within our democratic system that could be employed that would break the impasse? This prolongation of the negotiations seems to be to the advantage of either the government or the corporations. Bill Phipps: I guess one -- there's two things and this probably goes back to my small "l" liberalism rather than radical action at this point. I think there's a couple of places where we fell down. I don't think we have approached the corporations enough. I think the Daishowa boycott has had some effect and I think Daishowa is probably listening to that a little bit. I think that is somewhat effective. The other thing I was going to talk about are MLAs and MPs who do have some kind of sense of this. I remember some of us had a meeting with Jim Edwards one time. Now I don't think Jim is known as your flaming, left-wing radical particularly, but he sat down with us about the Lubicons. He heard our story of it. I don't think he knew very much about it. I don't think he was getting a lot of propaganda from whoever the Minister was at that point or Mulroney. I think he was wanting to find out about it. He said, "If you'd like me to set up a meeting of some of our caucus to hear more about this I'd be glad to arrange it." Some of us fell down in not taking him up on that. That was a few years ago. But it seems to me that there probably are MLAs and MPs who also think that there's something wrong here, that there's a disgrace going on here, that there's something wrong particularly I would hope Alberta MLAs and MPs. And maybe what we have to do is find out who the semi-sympathetic ones might be of all parties and try to have some kind of meeting with those guys to present exactly what we see the issues as being, what your findings are, and even if the Minister won't come here, maybe some MLAs and MPs want to find out because they're getting pressure from people. And if there could be some pressure exercised from those people through to the government, that's one place I don't think we've explored enough. And especially because of your role as an independent group with a mixture of people, it might well be possible to have sort of an all-party group of MLAs and MPs who are concerned about this and who might want to put some pressure on. Now another thing, of course, is far more direct action. I mean, what would happen if everybody in this room including your colleagues who are not here and other church people who are not here just went to Getty's office, for example, and sat there -- did the old-style sit-in in his office? Or whatever. I used to have a proposal with food banks that what we should do is close the food banks for a week and set them up in the Legislature. That might show people who work there there's a problem. Just take over the basement of the Legislature and say that's where the food bank is going to be for two weeks. Have people come there. Then they actually see people who need it. Maybe we have to take far more direct action with respect to where we think the problem is. Sounds like peanuts, doesn't it? As I talk, it sounds like peanuts. Don Aitken: Bill, first of all I'd like to thank you and your group for going up to Little Buffalo and coming and sharing your thoughts and your observations and your frustrations...we've been involved in other frustrating issues before. I think back to the time of the Gainers strike when we found ourselves very powerless, but in the end, the end result, unfortunately Albertans are still paying that price. I guess it had to end up being a bribe by this government to Peter Pocklington before we could get it resolved. That had to be done. But that came about as a result of a lot of pressure including the change the law campaign and all the other things that went along with that. The reason it was resolved in the end was because there was something to be gained by both sides by resolving it. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it doesn't seem like they want to resolve this. I think it's because -- we had an earlier discussion having gone over the federal government's position -- it's not necessarily, it's questionable whether it's in their interests to resolve it because they are only winners. They're never losers. There's only one loser and that's the Lubicons. I guess one of the things that we talked about is how we could get them to go from a win-lose situation to both sides losing or both sides winning; and being able to put that pressure to bear that there is going to be some incentive to resolve this thing. I think some of the things that we talked about -- the blockade and those kinds of things -- one of the things we talked about was to try to force -- not necessarily force at this stage -- but to perhaps have a moratorium on royalties going into government coffers going into a special trust fund and perhaps even a moratorium on profits being taken out of the area, which would give some incentive to somebody to resolve it other than just the one side who wants an agreement. Have you got any thoughts on that or any way that we could in fact put the government in a situation that they would be better off by having this resolved than they would be by not having it resolved? Bill Phipps: I'm not sure why it is not in their interests to resolve it. It seems to me, when I looked at when Getty went up and did the Grimshaw thing, that he got a lot of positive political mileage from all parties for that. I'm not one known to support the government in Ottawa or here on very many things. Yet I was impressed by that step. No other Provincial Premier to that point had done that with their land claim things. I think he got a lot of positive political mileage out of the general public and from people who vote for all 3 parties. I think that Mulroney...(change tapes)...they talked about cultural genocide and Trudeau had a fit. He was really embarrassed. And he was embarrassed enough that it created all this stuff, and that's really why we're here because there was such a furor at that time that a whole bunch of people got working on this thing. So I don't quite buy the argument that they've got nothing to gain. I think they've got a lot to gain, even if it's just votes, which is important to both these governments as they head into elections in the next year. Like financially, as far as I understand, there's not necessarily any cut-off of all the royalties that are coming out of there now. The land that they're talking about in terms of a reserve is not where most of the oil activity is. So they're not going to lose anything in terms of losing that resource, the oil companies and by implication the taxpayers. That's what I don't quite understand. That's why I think if people from all parties will sit down and look at the thing in terms of some kind of reasonable logic as well as doing what's right that something might be able to happen. Now maybe it has to happen with you guys suggesting that...but I guess I don't buy the argument that they've got nothing to win. I think both governments have a lot to win. Wouldn't you like to be the Minister who's signing this agreement and say: "This has been outstanding for 53 years. I'm the Minister who made an agreement with this people. We intend to settle these claims." This is one of many. Isn't that what politicians want? They want to be known for being able to solve these kinds of problems. It seems to me that a politician has a tremendous amount to gain. Don Aitken: I don't disagree with you. I think that -- we know in politics there are three things that count -- timing, timing and timing. We're coming into elections and so if there's ever any time that that political advantage, that they would see it as a political advantage, it would be now. Whereas after an election, they would have to wait until the next window of opportunity which could be two or three years down the road if that. But you're right, there is an opportunity for political pressure to be brought to bear that could make a difference. Bill Phipps: Along with that, I don't think either of these governments is totally secure in their re-election opportunities. I think that everybody knows that. Therefore I would think they would want to show some activity in area in which the Canadian people have expressed a strong interest. Jacques Johnson: Bill, you mentioned something about being a taxpayer and knowing the sensitivity of taxpayers to the disbursements of monies from the federal coffers or the provincial coffers to different projects, you seem to be quite at ease if not lackadaisical about the $170 million that the Lubicons are claiming for redress and for compensation and for a chance to establish a viable economy. But from a taxpayer's point of view, isn't that a humongous sum of money -- $170 million for say 500 people? Do you feel that the average citizen in this country would feel that's an okay settlement for these 500 or so aboriginal people? Bill Phipps: I'd say two or three things to that. First of all, I guess I assume that some compromises are going to have to be made. I think maybe not only should the federal government compromise a lot, but maybe the Lubicons are going to have to compromise too. There's going to be some way that's different than $170 million, or $50 or $47 million or whatever it is they're offering. That's one thing. And I think that's one of the difficult things for you to be able to do is to listen to all of this stuff and, as I said, find a way through the impasse that both parties can walk together honorably on. So there's got to be some compromise somewhere someway, and that's going to be a tough job. Beyond that, regardless of how much money it is -- it's got to be substantially more than the feds are offering -- I think the Canadian taxpayer -- again I make a comment about NovaTel. I mean, they seem to have money to throw at a lot of other things that the Alberta taxpayer doesn't appreciate much. I don't think there's any question if the Alberta taxpayer wanted to spend $170 million for Lubicon Cree who live in Alberta and pay taxes in Alberta, etc., they'd rather do that than give it to NovaTel who gives it to Americans. That's sort of a cheap shot, maybe. But I think people do make comparisons. And I think people says, "Well, they're spending all this money here. This doesn't seem like that much in comparison." But even more importantly, and I think maybe people who worry about the money mis-read this, I sense that the Canadian people see the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, or the whole "Indian establishment" -- I mean, it's really a non-Indian establishment -- that we have as costing a fortune, costing billions of dollars, much of it ending up in non-Native hands, bureaucratic hands like me -- I'm a bureaucrat for the church. And I think people are fed up with that. There's got to be a better bang for the buck. If taxpayers are going to spend money on things related to aboriginal people, we've got to do a better job than we're doing now. I think people are fairly fed up with it. If I understand the Lubicon proposal -- this is why I want to hear the specifics of why it's not appropriate -- here's a proposal that says "Look, it may not be all that great, but our hope is that if we start from small businesses that will train people and that will give jobs, then we'll get people off welfare." Well, those are three things that the Canadian people want. The Canadian taxpayers do not want their money just going to welfare payments and to keep people on welfare. Right? And the Lubicon proposal, as it's been explained to me 500 times by Fred and Bernard, says, "We want to get people off of welfare." There's no Canadian taxpayer who would disagree with that. "We also want to train young people." No Canadian taxpayer doesn't agree that our young people need training and jobs that are positive and that exist. "And economic activities, the small business that we want to create are practical and related to our life, whether it's a gravel pit, an old folks' home or whatever it is." And I look at the proposals and I say, "Well, they've got a possibility of working." And I think Canadian taxpayers say, "Gee, if these guys have a proposal that gives them a little bit of an economy based on small businesses that are going to succeed that will get them off welfare, etc." -- they'd say, "Three cheers, that's a terrific investment". The trouble is the government says, "$170 million. You're greedy". But nobody explains what that's for. That's why to me it's a logical thing that makes sense to people right across the political spectrum as taxpayers. So I don't think that's a lot of money. I think people would look at that and say, "Gee, that's a pretty good investment if we can do that." And I think a sidebar to that that we can't ignore is that our society has taken out $6 billion from their land. So to put $170 million back, as I say, is peanuts. That's almost like harvesting my garden and going out and buying a few seeds to put back in the ground. So I don't buy that argument. But it's got to be put more clearly. That's why I think if you guys can get people around the table to talk honestly about the actual proposals they've put forward, and flush out why the government doesn't like it, what's practically wrong with it -- I don't think there's much practically wrong with it. That's a long answer to your question, but I think it's a bogey person, to throw that out. I don't think it's real. Jacques Johnson: That answers my question. Thank you very much. I would like to take on the suggestion you made that there may be somebody else representing the churches who may like to share something with us. We'd be happy to hear you out if you'd like to take a chair. Please introduce yourself. John Stellingwerff: Thank you also for the opportunity for myself to have the floor and address you. My name is John Stellingwerff. I am the chairperson of the Edmonton Interchurch Committee for Aboriginal Rights. I've been chair of this committee since the past November and part of the committee for just over a year. It's been just over a year that I moved to Edmonton, so I'm relatively new to this situation. I work as a pastor in the Christian Reform Church. My title is Director of Ministries with Indian and Metis People in Edmonton, working at developing ministries with urban Natives. I also have just completed a Master's Degree in Social Work through McMaster's University and wrote a research project on the situation with the Lubicons using them as a case study, and also using theories put forth by social scientists and theologians, and trying to predict with those theories the potential for further violence or for violence to happen in this kind of situation with aboriginal people across Canada as we saw, for example, at Oka. I guess just a few things I would like to add to what Bill Phipps has been saying is that I went up also on the tour of Lubicon country a few weeks ago and came back completely appalled and overwhelmed at the conditions that the Lubicon people are living in. I've never been to a Third World country but in my work as a pastor I've been involved through World Vision and different relief agencies from our denominations in talking with missionaries and hearing about conditions in Third World countries and never realized that the poverty and despair and the conditions would be so poor as they are in this country -- one of the richest Nations in the world. I came back with a better understanding and more compassion and a sense of urgency that this situation needs to be resolved. I think we mentioned cultural genocide, Bill Phipps mentioned that a way of life's destroyed, and that's exactly the way I see it. I don't see that word as being too strong at all. The Lubicon people and many aboriginal people across the country have faced cultural genocide, their way of life is gone forever. For Native people that includes their spiritual life, their social life, because they have a life that is more holistic than I think we're used to in all those areas. And it showed in the despair that we heard, in the stories that we heard of alcoholism, alcohol abuse, increasing amounts among young people and teen-agers, the number of deaths that people were telling us about, still-born children, that kind of thing -- all a result of the despair and the hopelessness. I personally am becoming more and more, as I get involved, agitated and upset that we have a government that allows this kind of thing to happen. Again, not only with the Lubicon but I think with the James Bay Cree; at this present time there is a blockade happening in northern Saskatchewan, a way of life being destroyed because of clear-cutting by different mills, pulp and paper mills. I wonder when it's going to end. I think as we talk about it, cultural genocide is happening. I fear that more situations like we saw a few summers ago in Oka -- armed confrontations -- will happen unless this is resolved. The question was asked: are there ways to break the impasse. I'm not sure. I don't know the way government works all that well. I know many things have been tried through the courts, litigation, negotiation, there's been a blockade, there's been boycotts -- the Winter Olympics in Calgary saw a major boycott -- there's been letters written, education, and still nothing. I fear that unless something happens soon -- first of all, I should also say that across the country Indian people are asserting themselves more and more. We saw that at Oka. I fear that unless something happens we will see perhaps more violence. A year ago 13 Lubicons were charged with torching a lumber camp. I think that's an example of what may happen. This was not sanctioned by the Lubicon leadership. But when people are as oppressed and there's as much despair about facing cultural genocide, they will either die or fight back. I think that unless something happens, we're going to see more fighting back. I think it's inevitable, from reading the accounts of other people, other oppressed people and how they respond to that oppression. We talked a little bit about a win-win situation, or lose-lose, or win-lose -- I think that if the Lubicons lose, and if this continues, we'll all lose as Canadians. I think that we must have a win-win situation, or the whole Nation will suffer. I struggled with the question too -- $170 million, and as a taxpayer how will I deal with that. I'm a middle-class person and I'm frustrated at being over- taxed. I still have a few more weeks to work and then I will have finished paying my taxes for 1992 and everything after that is for myself, sometime in July is when we are tax-free. I'm part of a small denomination, 300,000 people in North America. We send millions of dollars annually to Third World countries -- Bangladesh, Africa -- to help poor people through missionaries, through relief. I know for myself, and I know from the people that I work with and my churches, church members, other church leaders, that if we see that justice is being done, that rights are being wronged, I think that we'll willing to pay a lot of money to see that happen. What is frustrating for me is to see our tax dollars going to high salaries and perks for politicians, to American companies, being misused and I think being misused in many ways. But if it goes to promoting justice for the oppressed people, for poor people...I think that, in my opinion, taxpayers are willing to dig deep and pay for that. I think as a Committee that we have done a lot of work in writing our politicians; in organizing educational forums, workshops, conferences to educate people in our churches about the Native culture, Indian spirituality, how we can work together, live together; and also to encourage our people to write politicians, when election time comes to find out from our politicians where they stand, how do they view these issues, what do they think should happen. It gives me a sense of making a difference to be a part of this Committee. We will continue through this Committee to educate through newsletters, speaking in our churches on how Christian people in this country can work to make a difference, to right some of these wrongs and to bring justice to these people living within our borders. Thank you. Jacques Johnson: Thank you very much, John. Your presentation is certainly much appreciated by the Commission. I'm just wondering if there're any comments or questions? Jennifer Klimek: I have one comment. I'm not sure it's a question, but maybe both of you can give me your views on this. It seems to me part of our problem here is that we have people making decisions who are very far removed from this situation. Having listened to you two gentlemen and the Lubicons, you put a real face on the problem, there's real people there. We have a sense of what's happening to real lives. I think when you're sitting in Ottawa or Edmonton and you're looking at papers with dollar signs and this and that, it's really hard to remember what the problem is and that delay is a real factor for the everyday lives of the Lubicons. I'm just wondering if you have any comment on whether that is a factor, and if so, how can we possibly as a Commission help break that impasse. Getting them out there, or getting less people involved, because we have a whole bureaucracy looking at it so nobody has to be responsible for the one decision when there's a hundred people to spread it over. I'd just like to get your comments on that. John Stellingwerff: I'll comment first. I was appalled to hear that when Tom Siddon went (to Little Buffalo) that was the first time a government official at that level has been up there through this entire period of time. Personally it doesn't make sense to have negotiators, government officials, talk and comment about this without having gone up there. For myself also, it was an abstract situation. I'd done a lot of reading. There's a lot of material to read about, but to actually see and spend some time up there gives a whole different perspective. I've talked to Chief Bernard Ominayak when he's been in Edmonton and other people from the Band, but to see them in their own setting, is necessary. The other thing that struck me is the isolation of their reserve. Different people in my churches also say: "What's wrong? Why can't they just get it together and get industrious and do something"...What the land was good for and that's how they sustained themselves was hunting and trapping and that is all gone. So when you come back you feel like you've been in another world -- a small community, isolated and dependent on welfare unless they get sufficient funds to develop some long-term sustained industries. For me that was important, not only to see the human face but to see the territory they live in, the wilderness, that kind of thing. Bill Phipps: I think that's a tough question. I don't expect -- maybe a little contrast to John -- Siddon's been on the job I don't know how long, not a long time, and it's a big responsibility. I think it's probably pretty hard at the Ministerial level or the government leader level to be visiting every little community and really understanding it. My disappointment in his visit -- I'm glad the guy went, I think he showed some energy and some initiative, and I take it at face value. I'm not going to go back and analyze all the sneaky motives there might have been there. I say the guy went, that's good. What I worry about is he didn't spend very much time there, just sort of walking around and touring around talking to people. He sort of seemed to go and go with Bernard into a building, with some other people, and then talk and then leave. That's too bad. It's too bad he didn't have people take him around a little more and just chat with people over coffee. You may be able to open that up a little bit. I understand you hope to go there yourselves. I would hope that might generate some interest in other people doing the same thing and putting that human face on it. Then the human face will be there for yourselves as well. Even though it was here when Bernard and others appeared, you'll get a little better sense of the context. I think we can tell -- the CBC Journal in the 1984 visit of church leaders did I thought a pretty good 20-minute show on the situation. I think even though everybody in Canada can't visit Little Buffalo, a lot of people saw that video back in 1984 that Bill Cameron produced. They got some feel for it. It's not the same as going first hand, but it gave people a little bit of a feel for the actual people who live there and what happens to their daily lives and so on. Maybe we could stimulate -- they almost came up with us but they had other things on their mind including the Rio Conference on the state of the world and so on. But there's opportunities like that. John Goddard's book I think describes some of the actual stuff that goes on with people. So there're other ways than just talking with people or being there. This brings to mind another thing. You asked us about some ideas we might have for you. I also offer the same thing. If in your analysis a church, whether it's church leaders or pastors from wherever, if you think there's a role we can play -- maybe the thing about timing that Don mentioned -- there may be a timing thing that may be beneficial, for church leaders maybe to ask for a meeting with Getty for example -- we probably won't get one with Mulroney, we might get one with Don Getty. And we could sit down and talk with him about what's going on with the people. He's been there so he has some sense of the folks. There may be a role that we can play at this time that we couldn't play a couple of years ago. So I make the same offer back and say if there's something that we should be doing that we haven't thought of, or whatever, we'd be glad to do that. If it means the national church leaders, for example, I know that periodically they met with Joe Clark on the constitution, they meet with Barbara McDougall quite often on immigration and refugee things -- that if you think there's a way and what might be accomplished by national church leaders meeting with some people in the federal government, particularly Siddon, and maybe to meet not over paper but in some other fashion, a different kind of a meeting. Use your imaginations. If you see another way of doing it, we're open to doing whatever you think we could be useful at doing. Menno Wiebe: I wanted to address a question to John. You just finished your Master's Thesis in book form and it's stapled together already? If there's any chapter that has particular relevance to what we're talking about, including your assessment of violence as a potential, I'm just wondering if it would be in order for you to share excerpts of that with this Commission that we could enter it as part of our information? John Stellingwerff: I brought a copy along. It's stapled together. I think the last two chapters may be helpful when I pull together theory and what's been happening. Sandy Day: Thank you. I was going to ask the same question, because I found that an interesting aspect. There's a whole point you brought forward of the potential for violence. I think we all sense the urgency, it brings another light onto that. Thank you for bringing that forward. John Stellingwerff: I'd like to respond a little bit more to your question, because I guess I'm feeling stronger about it as I think about it. In our Christian Reform Church we have a practice when a new pastor comes to a church that it's a top priority that that pastor visit every member in the congregation as soon as possible to find out what lives in the congregation, what are the concerns, where people are at spiritually and how are people feeling about their spiritual life, and just generally where people are at. We had Ovide Mercredi in Edmonton in January. He spoke at a church to a large gathering. He also said that -- I think he had been in his position in eight months, and in eight months he had visited 50 or 60 different reservations across the country. I think from my practice in my church and the example of Ovide Mercredi...(change tapes)...and planned the lives of these people as they have been for many years, making all kinds of decisions from their offices isolated from what's really happening. I'm not sure how much field agents or their people below them visit and talk, but I think that it's very important and it should happen more often. Don Aitken: I was just looking for the remarks that were made by Bernard Ominayak when he spoke to us and it relates very much to one of the things you said in the first place whether they die or fight back. It was made quite clear to us that they intended to do exactly that -- die fighting back if it was necessary. I think that really illustrates how important this issue is. I think your point about taxpayers willing to pay for social justice is really a good point. You also made that point Bill. Maybe that's another point that needs to be emphasized a little more. I really take the point that you made Bill about more public exposure. We need to explain the positions more to the public. Perhaps one of the ways that we can do that on our visit is to perhaps see if we can get some media to come up and cover some of the things we're doing. And perhaps have them see if there's some way that we can air the 1984 video -- is there a copy of that around? Perhaps it wouldn't even hurt for us to have a look at that before we go up so we can have something to compare it to. At the same time perhaps we can encourage some media to run portions of that and up-date it for 1992. That may be an important thing to do, to be able to show that things have in fact gotten worse rather than better. Again, I guess the point about explaining the position to the public -- the proposal put forth by the Lubicons is a proposal that wants to make them self-sufficient, nothing more. It doesn't want to make them millionaires, which is what always seems to be the (government's) position. If there's any way for us, or your organizations dealing with portions of that proposal, so that people could understand it, in your church sermons or your study groups or whatever, so that people generally could speak a little more knowledgeably about it. Although it is out there, there's not a lot of people talking about it in depth, they're just talking about a dollar bottom-line figure, which is so easy to (discredit) if you don't know anything about it. So I think the points that you made are good ones and we'll certainly take it into consideration when we're looking at our approach towards government and some of the ways to do that. So I think that you've really given me reason to believe that there's a lot more out there that can be done. So we really appreciate your presentations. Bill Phipps: I just want to pick up on that and say one other thing. I still believe that most people, including politicians, want to do the right thing. Now I know that there's all kinds of circumstances and other factors in there. And a politician, like everybody in their own life, at some point has to weigh this against that and take into account all kinds of different factors. But I'm not enough of a cynic to think that politicians do not -- I'm still a fan of politicians. I'm not a politician basher. I think there are politicians in all parties who do struggle with the issues, who do struggle with the ethics of issues. They come at it from different political points of view, and different ideologies and so on. I don't care about that in many ways. I think a lot of politicians struggle with their own ethical values and what they think is right. Most people, I think, go into political life to try to do something from their point of view that is sort of the right and the proper and the good thing to do. Now, part of the strategy I was talking about before is putting together a list of people, politicians who we think have some real interest in the Lubicon matter who really might look for a solution and want to do what's right, and meet with those people and talk to them face-to-face in the manner that you're talking about -- discuss the actual proposals and what they actually mean. And help them see what you're just talking about John, that the solution can be very reasonable and it's something that the Canadian people by and large think it's right, and what to do. And rather than being criticized for it and getting into some kind of political jam if they make a decision that's fairly favorable to the Lubicons -- rather than that they'll experience the opposite. They'll experience the Canadian people saying, "Finally the sham has gone." People are sick to death of political shams. They're saying, "These people got together and they looked at the real situation and they did what's right." Now I also happen to think it's practical too. But I've got a lot more faith in politicians and the public if the thing is put in clear, human, ethical and practical ways. And I think it's possible. I don't know. Maybe we can put our heads together and think of what to do. What would happen if we had a meeting with 10 or 15 MLAs from various parties and really had a go at the actual thing? I don't think that's totally naive. Jacques Johnson: I'd like to ask the Commissioners if there's anything else they would like to add or ask? No? I would like, in conclusion, to thank Bill and John for their presentations here this afternoon. They have spoken with great persuasive power and a lot of faith and care and what you communicated to us I think is very thought- provoking and very challenging. It seems to me that you've brought a very important, I would almost say new dimension into the debate. It has to do a lot with seeing the Lubicons as people, but also the people on the other side as people also, that may be moved and may be touched in some ways that they can see the advantages of seeking out a real settlement to the benefit of all Canadians and themselves also. I trust that you will continue to support the work that we are trying to do. We will try to support what you're trying to do, and maybe work together. To all our guests, I'd like to thank you all for being here this afternoon. I hope we'll see you very soon. We've invited you to write down your names and addresses and phone numbers so that you can be on our mailing list so that we will communicate to you what's happening so that you may be able to participate again. Thank you all very much. I now adjourn this meeting.