Jacques Johnson:  Thank you, Dawn Hill, for your statement.  It also was very
challenging and moving, and rest assured that the Commission will take heed of
your suggestions and try the best that we can to get a fair and just
settlement.  I wonder if there are any members of the Commission that would
like to raise a question or two with Dawn?

Bernard Ominayak:  I'd like to thank Dawn for her presentation.  As she
pointed, she's been here for a number of years now and she's a whole lot
closer to a lot of the women than I am.  I understand and appreciate the
concerns that the women have.  Those are everyday struggles for myself and I'm
very glad that today is one of the first times that the ladies have come out
and said what they felt to other people than myself, which I think is
important to me, because I can use the help.  It's been quite a few years, a
lot longer than I had planned on, being their leader.  Any help in this way I
certainly welcome.  With that I would like to call on Crystal to present her
statement.  We're getting down to the younger generation now and I hope --
that's what this fight is about, for the younger people -- and I hope the
Commission will be able to understand.

Crystal Gladue:  Overall, we hope that the land claim will be settled before
we graduate from high school.  My brother Timothy is in Grade 10 and I'm in
Grade 9, so that our future will seem brighter soon.  So that there will be
something to keep us here.  Even if we decide to go to university, we want
there to be something to come back to, some place with jobs and a sense of
community.  These are things we don't have or are losing now.

In the last few years, since we were young, we have seen more troubles here. 
More alcohol, and with it fights and accidents.  People don't get along any
more as well as they used to.  People from outside come to sell booze and it
breaks up families and causes violence.

This is our land, and none of this should have been going on in the first
place.  The government offers just aren't good enough.  Not enough to build a
good reserve that we can call home.  We would like to settle down and stay in
this community, but what will remain.

When we do something, like the blockade or the incident at the logging camp,
we shouldn't be blamed.  These are the right things to do for our future. 
When we see our dad and others going to court and maybe to jail, it doesn't
really bother us, since we know it's all a waste of time by the government. 
What bothers us mostly about it all is we don't get to see them as much with
all the meetings and trials.

Jacques Johnson:  Thank you Crystal for your statement, which brings us a
message on behalf of the youth of the Lubicon people.  We agree, you have hope
to be able to go in your studies in universities and career...you also hope to
have a beautiful home here in a community that is stable after the settlement
has taken place.  We feel a lot of distress over all the strain that comes
about in your own homes because of the lack of settlement and the social
impact that takes place with the people having to spend a lot of times in
meetings and even in court.  I'd like to thank you very much, Crystal, and ask
if there are members of the Commission that would like to raise some issues
with Crystal?  Menno?

Menno Wiebe:  Thanks, Crystal, for being courageous.  You're a brave woman,
that's what you are, at age 14 to come forward and make this statement for
yourself and on behalf of your brother.  This is really quite something.  It's
clear from what you said that the wisdom hasn't all been in school.  I'm sure
you know.  You're a smart Grade 9 student.  The wisdom comes from your Elders
and your parents, from the community, and I think we appreciate that very
deeply.  Thank you very much for being brave enough to walk up here.

Jacques Johnson:  We'll move on.  I'd like to ask if there's any other
questions from the Commission members to the women or to the young people?

Bernard Ominayak:  What I'd like to suggest at this point is maybe we have a
15 minute break and then come back.  We've got a number of other matters.  It
shouldn't take too long after the break from our side.  After that we'll try
to answer whatever you may wish to ask or whatever.

Jacques Johnson:  We'll take a 15 minute break.

Bernard Ominayak:  (in Cree)

Edward Laboucan:  (in Cree)

Bernard Ominayak:  That was Edward Laboucan.  He's on the Elders' Council and
has been for quite some time and he's been one of the people that has been
involved for many, many years, to way back when the initial promise was made
in 1939.  There's always a big question in his mind as to why is it that we're
faced with hardships by governments and everybody, meaning the oil companies
and that -- why isn't it that we're not able to get a fair and just settlement
for our people.  Also he's basically giving a word of encouragement to our
members that we continue and that we get a fair and just settlement at some
point.  He hopes to see that day, even though he's made a lot of effort in
trying to bring a fair and just settlement to his people.  That commitment is
there on his part and his only hope is that he would see the day that it is
going to be possible for us to have a fair and equitable settlement.

Jacques Johnson:  Thank you very much.

Bernard Ominayak:  The people from Europe are here, so maybe we'll open at
this time, allocate some time to them if you can maybe get them to deal with
the resolution that was passed by the many different support groups in
Europe -- for them to present that to you people this afternoon.

Jacques Johnson:  Before I call on Heinz, I'd like to, on behalf of the
Commission, thank Elder Edward Laboucan for his words of challenge and hope
that a just settlement may come about finally.  We would like to reassure him
that we will do all that we can so that the dream of the Lubicon people may be
a reality...short term.  We're gratified that with people such as yourself and
other Elders here to sustain people in the hard times that they are going
through, by their wisdom and holiness of life to be a source of...keep hoping,
brings protection to the people.

There are groups in Europe and in many parts of the world that have been
supporting the Lubicon claim.  It's a real pleasure for us to welcome today
Mr. Heinz Lippuner, who will come and share something that a support group in
Europe has come up with recently.  We will ask him to identify himself and
also identify the group that he represents.

Heinz Lippuner:  My name is Heinz Lippuner.  I'm living in Switzerland.  I
represent one of the biggest support groups or organizations for Native people
in the Americas.  I have with me a resolution on the Lubicon Lake Indian
Nation.  We think it's kind of important that this resolution is brought to
the Lubicon community orally, personally and publicly.  Some of you may know
the resolution, at least Chief Bernard Ominayak, but I think you should have
some quotations out of this resolution.  

Representatives of supporting groups from 13 European countries including
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom do hereby resolve 

1.)  to continue pressing in every imaginable way the governments of Canada
and Alberta to negotiate with the Lubicon people a fair and just settlement of
Lubicon land rights; 
2.)  to continue pressing European Governments and national and international
political organizations to keep raising the issue of outstanding Lubicon land
rights with Canadian politicians and representatives of the Canadian
Government, such European political organizations to include the United
Nations, the European Parliament, the Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe (CSCE), European political parties, aboriginal rights organizations,
human rights organizations and environmental organizations;

3.)  to accelerate the international STOP DAISHOWA campaign until there is a
settlement of Lubicon land rights and an agreement negotiated between the
Lubicons and Daishowa respecting Lubicon wildlife and environmental concerns;

and finally,

4.)  to establish a Lubicon Monitoring Committee of concerned European
organizations to enable a speedy and effective response to any changes in the
evolving Lubicon situation, including the possibility of another effort by
Daishowa this fall to clear-cut Lubicon trees.

Dated the 25th of July, 1992, in Genoa, the town that Christopher Columbus
originated from.

I would like to add two sentences to the Lubicon people.  You are not alone. 
There are European people who are with you in your struggle for a fair and
just settlement of your concerns.  I would like to present to the Commission a
copy of the resolution.  Thank you.

Jacques Johnson:  On behalf of the Commission, I would like to thank Mr. Heinz
Lippuner for tabling this very important document with expressions of support
of many European countries and organizations.  It is with this kind of support
that I think the Lubicon people will be able to continue to forge ahead, and
also to be constant in their struggle for justice.  Thank you.  And I hope
that you will bring to your organizations, Heinz, the appreciation of the
Commission.  I'm sure also of the Lubicon people.

At this moment, I would like to invite members of the Commission, perhaps, to
raise questions that they may have with the Lubicon people and in particular
with the Chief and Council.  We don't know if at this stage you would like to
react publicly to the latest federal government offer, but if you have
anything that would like to state at this time, Bernard, we would be most
happy to hear you out.

Bernard Ominayak:  Again I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the
Commission for being here today and sharing the problems that our people are
faced with and the hardships that we've gone through.  I believe that our
hardships are unnecessary when we have many resources through our traditional
territory.  It's most unfortunate that we're forced into this situation.  But
at the same time we must keep looking ahead and hoping that there is going to
be something positive at some stage in the very near future for our people. 
With that I would first of all like to hand over to Father Johnson a statement
that came in from another Indian First Nation which they've asked me to table
before the Commission to let them know that they are concerned with what is
happening.  

Jacques Johnson:  I think I would like to read it.  Okay?

Given to the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review by Chief Ernest Sundown,
Joseph Bighead First Nation, August 06, 1992.

"First of all I would like to thank the Commission for agreeing to hear our
presentation in support of the Lubicon Lake First Nation.  The citizens of the
Joseph Bighead Band have watched very closely the events surrounding the
situation the Lubicon people face.  We have visited the Lubicon homeland to
inform ourselves first-hand of how people are withstanding the pressure faced
by them by the governments of Canada and Alberta.  We have just recently
forwarded a letter to Prime Minister Mulroney stating our concerns on the
existing situation.  I want to repeat some of our concerns here.

"We have reviewed the terms of reference of this Commission and the questions
the Commissions answered by the governments of Canada and Alberta.  What is
clear from the questions and by reading between the lines is the power of
Canada and Alberta to continually abrogate their responsibilities to the
Lubicon people.  The political and economic power of the state has been used
to unilaterally impose its will on the Lubicon Lake people.  The situation as
we see it is a clear indication of the nature of the problem between the Crown
and the indigenous people of this land.  

"The indigenous people of this land understand very well the Canadian system
of government.  We have had 126 years of formalized oppression to learn what
it is all about.  What the governments of Canada and the provinces have never
bothered to learn is our system of government, and the social, spiritual,
cultural, political and economic bases for our success of governing.  The
Euro-Canadian cultures of Canada have always assumed that the European way of
governing was the right way and their systems were to be forced on us.  The
Indian Act of Canada is one of the most oppressive pieces of social
legislation to be created in the Western world.  The sole purpose of this Act
is to determine where we live, who is an Indian and how we are to behave.  The
citizens of the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation and their government have rights in
this land that pre-date those of Euro-Canadians and the Canadian governments
refuse to recognize and honor those rights.

"As I mentioned earlier, this issue is a clear reflection of the nature of the
problem in Canada.  Our people, the Joseph Bighead Cree, have had recent
first-hand experience with the problem.  Our recent appearance before the
House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs has not resolved the issue we
presented.  We fully understand the nature of the relationship between the
Crown and our peoples, and it is one of enormous power on one side, and on the
other side, dependency, a struggle for justice and parity in our own land.

"It is my understanding that both the Canadian and Alberta governments have
refused to appear before this Commission, using the excuse that everything
that needs to be said has already been said.  That is nothing but a
stonewalling tactic to avoid publicly having to answer for their actions.  The
First Nations of this land have had a lot of experience with these kinds of
tactics.  

"I would like to use this opportunity before this Commission to remind the
Crown of some of the words in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaties.

Those words have to do with the Crown ensuring that the honor of the Crown was
upheld at all times.  Where is that honor today?  The Lubicon people have
attempted now for over 5 decades to enter into an honorable relationship with
the Crown, and of being rejected by a State which claims that honor is the
prime objective in dealing with indigenous people -- or is honor somehow
defined differently by the Crown than we understand it.  All of the evidence
in the case of the Lubicon people points to a definition that means the
unilateral control of all the land, resources, culture, beliefs and practices
of the Lubicon by the Nation State of Canada.  This is not honor as we
understand it.  This is cultural genocide exercised through the political
power of the State, imposed on a daily basis through the vehicle of the
Canadian Indian Act which sanctions the actions of government against the
Lubicon Lake Nation.  This is not an honorable action.  What the Lubicon Lake
Nation people want is a fair and honorable relationship with the Crown, just
as all indigenous people want the same thing.  But it must be a relationship
that is based on trust and fair dealing.  

"To date the Lubicon people have not been dealt with fairly.  Their history
has been well documented and clearly shows the despicable way that agents of
the Crown have attempted to dispossess the Lubicon of their identity, land and
resources.  It may have been legal from the point of view of the Crown, but is
it honorable, is it fair, is it just?  I think not.

"The Joseph Bighead Cree fully supports the efforts of the Lubicon Lake Nation
to achieve their goals within the territory of Canada.  We're asking you as a
Commission of Review to use whatever powers of persuasion you have to confront
the Canadian and Alberta governments with your finding.  The people of Lubicon
Lake have lived with injustice long enough.  It is now time for justice, honor
and the right to be a self-determining, a self-sufficient First Nation within
Canada.

"Thank you."

Thank you very much, Chief Bernard.  We also would like to thank Chief Ernest
Sundown of the Joseph Bighead First Nation for presenting this very powerful
statement that we will certainly keep in mind as we continue with the
Commission of Review.

Bernard Ominayak:  We appreciate that other Canadian people are encouraging
the Commission to continue with the work that they set out to do.  We
understand that it's not very easy for the Commission to do the kind of work
that needs to be done, especially when there's a lot of criticism and fingers
being pointed.  There's been some that stated that this was an NDP Commission
and so on.  But it's my understanding that most of the political parties in
this Province are being represented and a whole lot of other people.  So we
certainly appreciate that the people involved in the Commission are prepared
to look at all sides of the problem that exists today and hopefully at some
point you will be able to put things together in a way that will enable us to
continue with a future for the Lubicon people.  That's been our objective, and
I would hope that is achieved at some point.  I know that we've been fortunate
enough to work with a lot of different people in the past and we hope to build
on that again.  To the earlier question that Father Johnson asked, the last
response that we got from the federal government which Mr. Siddon described as
a fair and generous response exceeding to a large degree, as he put it, the
settlements that have transpired in the past in dealing with the Indian
Nations across this country.  I think most of you will -- once you look at the
response -- will realize that is not the case.  We've got a number of basic
problems with it.  What I've done thus far is we've responded by way of letter
to the Minister stating a number of concerns.  For example, again they are
talking about membership, which was resolved some time ago and shouldn't be an
issue, but now they're back to square one where they're stating that they are
the people who are going to determine who we are and who is Lubicon and who is
not and all this rhetoric that he's put forward in his response.  So I don't
think we're at a stage where the federal government is serious and is wanting
to arrive at a settlement with us at this point in time, but rather is still
trying to discredit us.  I think if you people read the response you'll be
able to assess that on your own.  Nevertheless again, it's something that we
cannot afford to deal with in any serious manner at this point.  We hope that
things turn around to our benefit, but it's not there at this point.  It's
clear from the response that they've given us.  I guess that's a broad
overview as to the response that we're making.  There's not too much more I
can say about it at this point.

Jacques Johnson:  Would any of the Commission like to ask questions about this
issue or about others?  Menno?

Menno Wiebe:  The original mandate of this Commission of ours is to examine
the federal offer made to the Lubicon Nation, along with the counter-proposal
drafted by your Band and presented to the federal government.  What we now
have before us is an alternate offer.  So I'm assuming that for our Commission
that we do examine this new offer, unless I'm misunderstanding the focus of
our mandate -- that we take this new offer.  I also don't know if the old
offer...(change tapes)...

Bernard Ominayak:  ...of the kind of settlement that we were looking for, and
hopefully that we would arrive at a satisfactory settlement, then the
definition wouldn't stand in our way.  Those are the things that we kept
talking about very early on.  But they keep coming back and try to confine us
and saying that we are part of Treaty 8 and so forth, which we aren't.  We've
even challenged them to produce documentation or whatever that they may hope
to stand on by way of their position.  They haven't been able to do that.  In
so far as your earlier comment, I don't really don't know.  I don't think
they've come up with a proposal that is anywhere near serious that we could
take into consideration by way of settlement on our part.  The other thing
that I guess I would like to point out is I think a lot of you have heard a
lot about Indian self-government by the federal government where they say we
want Indian self-government and the Indians want Indian self-government and so
on.  But at the same time they're still trying to manipulate membership and
utilizing the Indian Act and all this stuff and that just throws everything
out the window.  They're talking to the aboriginal people about the
constitution and how they may participate and how Indians may be in the
constitution.  So we've got two different levels of discussions going on. 
While they're forcing people down on one hand, they're trying to create this
impression that they are serious and want to deal with the aboriginal people
of this country in a fair manner, which is total rhetoric on their part.  I
think a lot of the Canadian public should understand what is happening by way
of what this particular government is doing.

Now the question arises as to whether we're going to be able to succeed with
this government or is there going to be another government.  All of these
questions come into play when we're dealing with all this stuff.  We hope that
at some point we're able to sit across the table like today where we have
white people on one side and Native people on the other and we look at each
other squarely in the eye and we look at each one as equals.  But we haven't
arrived at that with the general population of this country at this point. 
And that's one of the bigger drawbacks that aboriginal people have.  While
we're prepared to sit here be patient with everybody else and open doors for
them to our territories, they decide they want everything and we're in the
way.  What I'm speaking of is racism.  There is a lot of it out there and it's
something that we try to deal with and it has been one of the hindrances for
all aboriginal people across this country.  I think a clear example was the
time of the Oka situation when the racists really came out -- it's always
there.  It's something that I've run across travelling this country...I'm sure
a lot of the problems that exist between the non-Native societies and the
Native societies would be solved if we could solve the problem of racism--
it's something that we have to work together on.  I guess that's a ways from
the questions that arose, but it's something that I think we all have to deal
with.

Jacques Johnson:  Thank you, Bernard.  

?:  Bernard, I have a question.  I'd just like to ask you a question.  In
terms of trying to settle, would you be in agreement if the possibility arose
to segment portions, so we could settle on some and then move on to the next
issue and try to settle on that?  Or does it have to stay as a whole package?

Bernard Ominayak:  I guess that's the kinds of questions that we have asked
ourselves in the past, even as late as last night, as to what is possible.  If
I understand correctly, you're asking me if a partial settlement on certain
items would be possible.  These are things that we would have to balance if
and when that opportunity arose, because on one hand if we settle for a
partial settlement, how much leverage do we lose when you're looking at the
overall settlement, especially when you're dealing with people that are not
honest or honorable people.  So these are questions that we have to ask
ourselves -- what is possible within the system at this point in time?  But
again, we would certainly like to at least have a process in place to deal
with other outstanding issues if and when that opportunity arose that we were
able to look at a certain sector of an overall settlement, because there are
issues that have to be dealt with.  I guess to answer your question, if and
when that arises then we have to seriously look at what is going to be
possible, or if it is going to be possible.

Jennifer Klimek:  Chief Ominayak, we've got this offer.  Has there ever been
any detailed response to your proposal, or has it just come out in this
form...this is too high or we disagree with this for this reason.  Has that
ever happened...

Bernard Ominayak:  I gave our counter-proposal to Mr. Siddon back in November.

This is supposedly his response to our counter-proposal which I think you
people have access to.  At that point, what he said to me was that he wanted
my reaction to that particular response because he was hoping that his
government or his department would be appearing before you people, or at least
presenting his response to you people.  Now whether that has happened or not I
don't know.  But what I basically told him was it was his prerogative, that I
didn't have any recommendations one way or the other about the government
appearing before the Commission.  We've never had any commitments by way of
what we can do and what we cannot do.  But it was totally within his power to
present it to you or whatever he chose to do.  Also I encouraged him that his
government should be here answering the kinds of questions the Commission has
for the federal government.  So with that understanding this is supposedly his
response.

Fred Lennarson:  Maybe I can just make a comment on that too.  The Lubicon
people have been asking for years for a detailed reaction to their proposals. 
Finally on June 5th, Siddon came up here in response to creation of the
Commission and the questions that you put forward.  That's when he asked for
an emergency meeting at Little Buffalo Lake.  In that meeting he agreed again
to provide a detailed reaction to the Lubicon Settlement Proposals.  If you
look at this thing, this is not a reaction.  They're not reacting to Lubicon
proposals.  All they've done is put Lubicon positions on issues on one side of
the page and the government's position on the issues on the other side of the
page.  And the government's position is basically the "take-it-or-leave-it"
offer.  They've just put it on two halves of the page and they call that a
reaction.  And that's as close as we've ever come.

Michael Asch:  Just for a little bit of clarification.  I really appreciated
your earlier remarks, but in addition to the question of the difference
between your position and the federal -- I don't know what to call it --
response, federal statement...in addition to issues regarding compensation and
certainly the issue of membership, are there any other areas of concern that
we should be alert to and considering with regard to your understanding of
their proposals?

Bernard Ominayak:  I think first of all, as I pointed out earlier when we
appeared before you people in Edmonton, a lot of the programs and program
dollars they describe as very generous should be available to us now.  They
should have been available to us long before today, and that has not happened.

But in the overall sense, if you look at the so-called response, there's a lot
of shortfalls in many areas.  Basically they are suggesting in a lot of the
different areas that we go to the program people and apply like anybody else. 
So it's not any kind of special agreement that they're putting before us.  I
think what we tried to do from our perspective was try and put a package
together that would enable us to build a community and hopefully start dealing
with the problems that exist within our community.  In order to do that we
tried to put our heads together to try and come up with many different areas
that we needed to deal with.  We certainly weren't given the same kind of
consideration.  I think there's a lot of shortfalls in many of the different
areas.  When we speak of membership and these kinds of issues...we cannot
afford to negotiate or re-negotiate anything of that nature.  We've got a
position and it's a position that we've fought long and hard for and we're not
apt to turn around and start all over again.  So that begs the question  --
are these guys serious or are they not serious?  When we look at it from that
perspective, they clearly aren't serious.  It's more, as I pointed out, a
method on their part for PR work, and that's what it is.  For example, when we
went to that meeting, Mr. Siddon called me late at night and proposed to get
together here in Edmonton.  He said, "I don't want to concern myself with the
media.  I don't have any interest."  I said, "Well, I certainly won't got out
of my way to invite anybody."  I said, "I'm not going to do that."  So I get
to the Edmonton Inn where he proposed the meeting and there were cameramen and
media there and he invited them in.  He wanted them to take a picture of him
handing me the response.  I said, "Fine.  I'm not going to run away from
them."  So what I'm looking at is I certainly know that these guys are playing
games rather than trying to make a serious effort to try and bring out an
agreement.  But we're caught in a situation where we're damned if we don't and
damned if we do, where we've got to try and leave that door open so we can
meet and can we convince them.  But so far I don't really think Siddon's got
any authority to try and make any kind of independent agreement other than
what he's confined to prior to getting in this document.  He certainly didn't
know what was in it.

Michael Asch:  This may be for you or for Fred, I'm not sure, or anyone else. 
I'm just going to turn to one page because I cannot quite understand
something.  While I'd like to have the federal government here to answer I
don't have the federal government here, so maybe they explained this to you,
but I don't know.  I'm just going to read you one.  I chose it because it's an
important one, but I could have chosen a lot.  This is under the Lubicon self-
government.  And in the left-hand column it says, "New Lubicon Proposal".  And
then it has a clause, and this is nothing private but it is rather similar to
something I've seen that you guys put forward.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure
it's the same thing.  It says:  

"New Lubicon Proposal:

"Provincial laws of general application will apply except to the extent that
these laws are inconsistent with the provisions of the Lubicon self-government
legislation contemplated herein, any other act of the Parliament of Canada or
law of the Band."

That's what it says.  Now I don't know whether that is their proposal to you
or your proposal to them.  Let me go on to the next column.  It says:

"Comments:

"Worded somewhat differently."

Who?  Worded somewhat differently from your proposal?  Worded somewhat
differently, I mean, it needs to be worded somewhat differently?  I'm not
exactly sure.  And then the last one, it says: 

"Status:

"Further clarification."

Whose clarification?  Your clarification?  Their clarification?  Is that
something you can help me with?

Bernard Ominayak:  Maybe what I'll do is I'll appoint Fred as a federal
representative and maybe he can answer...

Fred Lennarson:  It's not the first time he's done something like that.  I
want to tell you a story before I try and answer your question.  When all this
started and people started hearing about it we'd get invitation from, quite
often, church groups.  And we'd go and usually end up in the basement of a
church talking to a half a dozen interested people.  And after a while we were
comfortable with that.  Bernard and I would usually go and sometimes some
other people would go.  One morning Bernard had an invitation to appear at a
church in Edmonton and we went and we walked in the door and the place was
packed and we were ushered up to the pulpit and they had a church program that
said, Chief Bernard Ominayak was going to be delivering the sermon that day. 
We were sitting in front of this big church full of people with a printed
program and Bernard was supposed to be delivering the sermon.  So I sat there
and watched him, wondering what he was going to do.  So he got up to speak and
I was sitting there with a little smile on my face and he thanked people for
inviting him and expressing concern and then he introduced me to give the
sermon.  But never before has he asked me to be the federal government.

Michael Asch:  How was your sermon?

Fred Lennarson:  I went real fast.  Now with regard to your question I think
what they're saying is that the Lubicon proposal is what they're calling the
"New Lubicon Proposal".  But I'm going to have to go back and check the exact
wording of the Lubicon proposal because frankly that wording sounds a little
funny to me as well.

Michael Asch:  It doesn't sound the same to me.

Fred Lennarson:  I know...Every single clause has to be checked when you get
documents from the government of Canada because they say all kinds of things
that just simply aren't true.  That's one of the problems with this document
and it's one of the problems with trying to negotiate with federal
representatives.  They make all kinds of claims in here about numbers that are
not true.  The Minister says in his cover letter that their offer is worth
over $73 million.  It's not, even if you accept all his numbers, and his
numbers include such things as $10.5 million contribution from the Province
which they calculate is the market value of Lubicon reserve land.  So that
adds $10.5 million to the offer.  They have in there $1 million for a road. 
It's a provincial government road.  The Grimshaw Agreement provides that the
Province will own the shores and beds of Lubicon Lake and the Lubicons will
give them access to the shores and bed of Lubicon Lake.  That's the road. 
It's a provincial government access road.  They add it to the Lubicon offer.

One comment that I'd like to make on this whole question of money.  The
Lubicons come at this whole question on a much different level than the
government.  The Lubicons are concerned with things like vocational training
and how to do it.  Now that has costs, but the Lubicon focus is on vocational
training and housing and recreation for the kids and commercial development
and so on.  What the government does with that is put the focus on the money
and then tries to negotiate the money end.  So we're talking about different
things here.  The Lubicons are not looking at the money.  There are financial
implications to what they're proposing to do, but what they're proposing to do
is put together a community which works once again and can support itself.  

There are also all kinds of little things that they keep throwing in here. 
They have for example something which they say must be done.  They say there
has to be a clause whereby the Lubicons indemnify the government of Canada
should somebody who might have been part of a settlement but wasn't sue the
government of Canada.  As far as we're concerned that's a complete abdication
of the government's constitutional responsibility for dealing with aboriginal
people and aboriginal lands.  The government has a responsibility for dealing
with aboriginal people.  The Lubicon people can only be responsible for the
people they represent.  If there's somebody out there the Lubicons don't know
about or who refuses to participate in the settlement agreement, that person
may have a cause of action against the government of Canada, constitutionally
and legally -- that's between that person and the government of Canada.  The
Lubicon people can't be responsible for people they don't represent.

The membership clause is another question.  We had it settled in December of
1988; now we're back on that.  We fought over something called the counted-
once rule.  They proposed to deduct all kinds of people whom they said had
been counted some place else for purposes of land.  Now they're trying to
apply the same counted-once rule with regard to this socio-economic formula. 
And again it is very clear even on the face of the document that what they're
trying to do is deceive -- not the Lubicons, because they know the Lubicons
are going to understand this -- but Canadians generally.