Michael Asch:  First of all I want to say that the last part was a very
interesting federal government statement.  I would like the meeting to go on,
but I wonder if someone has the package.  I have the Lubicon proposal except I
don't have it right here.  I'd like to really check because I really want to
nail this down.  Is this your language that they're saying is worded somewhat
differently or have they changed the language?  I think that's important.  So
if we could check it.

Jacques Johnson:  I have a question to ask Bernard.  In terms of where you are
with the federal government in negotiations, could you sum up for us please
what it is that you feel you both agree on?  How about land?  Is it pretty
well okay?  The land area, the land issue?  And if it is, besides the land
issue, is there any other bits and pieces that you feel that you can agree on
at this stage?

Bernard Ominayak:  That's kind of a tough question to answer, Father, because,
for example, Michael just asked a question about something we thought was
settled.  But they keep coming back at them, so it's really hard to say that
we agree on this and we agree on that when these guys keep coming up trying to
re-start the whole process.  We're trying to build as we go, but then we have
to go back and start from square one.  In so far as the Grimshaw Agreement the
Premier of Alberta, Mr. Getty, has stated time after time that Grimshaw
stands.  So they have not tried to take that apart other than the initiative
they took with the Woodland Cree where they were at the outset claiming that
if a certain number of the Lubicon membership went over to the Woodland Cree
then a reduction would be made to the land that was set aside for a supposed
Lubicon reserve.  With all the fooling around with the membership and stuff,
it's now not clear as to what their position is.  At the same time, if there
was an effort on the part of the federal government to try and take that
apart, then that would be something again that we'd have to closely look at
and reconsider as to what is it that we can do from our side.  So I don't feel
it's appropriate for me at this point to state that this is exactly what we're
going to do, if everything is out the window, if movement is there on their
part...

Fred Lennarson:  The Lubicon position is also kind of an organic whole and
it's hard to talk about agreeing on part of it and not agreeing on another
part of it, because the parts are all interrelated.  For example, if the
government insists on this position on membership the whole thing comes apart.

The rest of it doesn't make any sense if they are the ones that are going to
determine what Lubicon people are entitled to adhere to treaty.  Nothing makes
any sense if they stick to that position.

Jacques Johnson:  It looks like a long road ahead.

?:  Just before the last election, Bernard, Prime Minister Mulroney made all
kinds of promises and hand shakes and commitments and now we're on the eve of
a new election where does it go?  We could have a new government and a new
Prime Minister.  The way things are looking we could have more of the same. 
What are the other parties saying?  Are they making any kind of commitment? 
The Liberal Party, which could be the new government?

Bernard Ominayak:  I can't say what may happen by way of governments.  I guess
to look at it from our perspective, we don't see how it is going to be
possible to get a worse government than what we've got in power today.  I
think there's a whole lot of people who agree with that.  So we're hoping that
people would wake up and see what these people stand for or don't stand for. 
A new government will hopefully be of benefit for all the people in Canada,
not only the Lubicon people.  Because it can't get any worse than this.  

Again, I'll make reference to the Oka situation.  That's something that we
probably expected a hundred or a couple of hundred years ago to happen and yet
in this day and age we see the kind of racism that is out there and a
government that created that incident.  That's a serious situation because I
understand and appreciate the kind of pressures that the Mohawk people were
under at that time.  They didn't have any option but to try and stand up to
these guys.  That's the same position that our people were forced under a few
years ago.  What do you do?  Do you just lie down and let these guys walk over
you or do you try and stand up?...Or even in this situation.  I mean, if we
had white people here I don't think we would have this problem.  But the fact
is we've got to face reality and do the best we can.  

I would hope with a greater understanding and a greater appreciation by people
like you we could make progress.  As Don pointed out, he's ashamed to be
Canadian.  There you've got a person who's starting to understand what is
being done by his own race to other peoples, and I think once a lot more
people get to that level then we stand a better chance of dealing with people
like the Lubicon people who are put in these kinds of circumstances with no
choice of theirs...We never did say once...that we oppose any kind of
progress.  But if there's going to be progress, whatever kind of progress,
then it's got to be progress in a way that is going to at least take into
consideration all peoples that are going to be directly affected.  With that
kind of an understanding, I'm sure a lot of these kinds of developments that
do take place would go a lot smoother.

With Daishowa, the government claims that they are dealing with the economic
situation within the Province, but I don't see how that is possible.  They've
let the Japanese people cut all our trees and with all the damage that is done
through that process, then the Lubicon people have no place else to go and
have to suffer the consequences of the kinds of stupidity that this particular
government does.  It's not only the Lubicon people.  It's other people.  It's
both Native and non-Native people that don't have any other place to go and
that have suffered the consequences of these kinds of developments.

Jacques Johnson:  Michael Asch?

Michael Asch:  Just a real quick comment.  I went out and got a copy of the
June 1990 Lubicon proposal and I did not find anything that was actually or
even generally the same wording that I read before.  It is not Lubicon wording
as far as I've seen it.  I therefore interpret that left hand side of the
column is the federal government's re-write of the Lubicon proposal.  The
center column tells you that they have worded it somewhat differently.  And
the right hand side tells you whether this new wording is acceptable to them
or whether it needs further clarification.  Now that's my interpretation. 
Fred has a different interpretation.  This is one reason why it would be very
helpful to have the federal government come here and explain to the Commission
what this is about.

Fred Lennarson:  I don't disagree with you.  I looked at it and made certain
assumptions but as I said anything received from the government of Canada has
to be closely examined.

Michael Asch:  Maybe Mr. Siddon should answer to that.

Fred Lennarson:  Well, maybe Mr. Siddon could answer it or maybe somebody in
the federal government.

Bernard Ominayak:  I think that's one of their intentions, Michael, to try and
create a false impression.  I wonder how many people are going to be asking
the same kinds of questions that we're asking, or will they just take for
granted what the government says.  These are the circumstances that we have to
go back all over again and try to correct the deliberate misinformation that
these guys put out...

Menno Wiebe:  I'd like to ask question, strictly as a individual member of the
Commission in no way representative of anything we've discussed because it
hasn't been.  But I did want to ask this question with regard to the
prolonging of the negotiations.  That question has to do with the matter of in
whose interest the postponement of settlement is.  What we heard from the
Lubicon Native women group was that the agony, social and otherwise, is very
substantial and the plea for an early settlement, that's how I read that
submission.  It would seem wrong to me that the Lubicon members be punished
for the prolonging of the settlement.  Recognizing that on the other side of
the table, the prolonging of settlement is really to the advantage of the
development corporations, be they oil or the timber industries.  So it is not
in their interest -- it would seem -- and maybe John and Norm have different
views on this -- doesn't seem to be in their interest to settle quickly.  So
it's very good to keep the discussion going while you are losing whatever
amount of oil or timber on a daily basis.  So this is my question to you. 
Have you considered, have the Lubicon people considered some kind of interim
measure that would not punish you for prolonging settlement.  I'm at a bit of
a loss to even figure what that might be.  But it would seem something other
than their answer which would seem to be public funding in the form of
welfare.  But are there some interim measures that could be taken so you would
not be victimized for their perpetuation of the negotiations?  I hope my
question is understood.

Bernard Ominayak:  I don't know if I can respond to you, Menno.  I think I
understand the question.  In so far as the women and their presentation, as I
stated, I'm glad that they've done what they've done.  But nevertheless again
we have to state that's something that the government would really appreciate,
because that's exactly the position that they would like to have us under. 
They figure if they can pound away at us long enough that we'll get on our
hands and knees and start begging for whatever they may present to us.  But I
don't think that as long as I'm here and still have the majority backing of
the membership of the Lubicon Lake Nation that I would be quite prepared to do
something like that...I think I'd rather step out of the way before I'd get on
my hands and knees to any government other than if and when they are prepared
to meet the needs of the people that I represent.  In so far as trying to deal
with the interim by way of reality as to the hardships that our people face,
we know that we have a lot of problems in the community and they keep coming
at us from every way that they can.  Both governments are involved.  The
provincial government's involved and also the federal government's involved,
whether it be through Municipal Affairs or however they come at us through the
Alberta side.  And then the federal government on one hand says "You can't
have this and you can't have that because you don't have a reserve" and all
these things that they've been telling us all these years.  What we've tried
to do just recently -- and I think I've got to give a lot of credit to Mr.
MacMillan here and his boys -- when some of the people were thinking of trying
to move back to the original places John's boys lent us a cat.  I think you
guys saw the kind of half-assed road we put in there to allow that access for
our people to start trying to build our homes back and relocating back in our
homeland.  That in one sense is a minor thing, but still it allows people to
start dealing with the real issues, starting to build that base themselves. 
Again that's a minor thing, but it's big on one hand when you have people like
John's boys who are prepared to assist us and lending us the cat...and saying,
"If and when you can pay us, pay us, and if you can't we'll understand."  So
these are minor things, but still they give motivation to people like Edward
there, as he put it.  He's glad to go back where he originated from.  But
that's just one example, I think, if there are people who are interested in
doing something, this is maybe the direction that we should be looking at
rather than pounding our heads against the wall trying to get a few dollars
off the government, but rather stay away from them and try and get something
in place that enables our people to start building; because around here we
know that we're going to be leaving at some point, so it's really hard to
continuing improving your home or your garden or whatever you may have. 
Because there's always that's big question when these things happen.

Fred Lennarson:  I think the development companies by and large are prepared
to deal with whoever owns the lands and the resources.  The real big problem
comes with the government.  Now there's a relationship between the big
corporations and the government of course, but by and large the companies --
if it's Indian land, they're prepared to sit down and deal with Indians.  If
it's provincial jurisdiction that applies, if it's federal jurisdiction that
applies, they'll deal with them.  The real big question in my judgement is
this jurisdictional question -- who owns the land.  And that's between the
governments and the Lubicon people.  The provincial government says it's their
land, they got it from the federal government.  The federal government says
they got it from negotiating a treaty with the Indians in 1899.  The Lubicons
say, "Were the aboriginal people of this land and we never negotiated a treaty
with anybody or ever ceded our traditional lands in any legally or
historically recognized way."  That's at the heart of this struggle.

Jacques Johnson:  Thank you.  Jennifer?

Jennifer Klimek:  I have one question about the Province.  Now my
understanding is -- correct me if I'm wrong on this -- is that you want,
you're claiming some aboriginal rights over timber.  Where does the provincial
government stand on this.  They've signed an FMA that gave the rights to log
this timber to Daishowa.  What is your position vis-a-vis that?  If you get
it, are you going to re-negotiate that or live up to the FMA?  What's your
position on that?

Bernard Ominayak:  What we have done with the Alberta Government was negotiate
a committee where our concerns would hopefully be dealt with and where we'd
have an equal voice on this particular committee that would consist of members
from here, provincial Fish and Wildlife and the Peace River Fish and Game
Association to deal with our traditional territory.  For example, if there's
going to be clear-cut logging, where is it going to be?  When is it going to
be?  What kind of time span is going to be placed before other places are
clear-cut logged?  Anything of that nature.  Maybe the oil development.  And
also to try and take into account the concerns that the Lubicon people have by
way of environment and wildlife.  How can we prevent the worst kind of damages
that takes place, or the destruction that takes place by way of clear-cutting.

So these are the concerns that we had and we had hoped that this particular
committee would be able to deal with those concerns that our people have, in
conjunction with the Alberta Government.  Now how that lies with the FMA, I
don't know at this point, because the FMA covers over and above our
traditional territory.

Jennifer Klimek:  And that Committee's been agreed to? 

Bernard Ominayak:  Pardon?

Jennifer Klimek:  Has the provincial government agreed to that committee
structure?

Bernard Ominayak:  At one point.

Fred Lennarson:  I 'd like to add to that.  The Lubicon position is that as of
now they retain jurisdiction and ownership over their entire traditional
territory.  They've never sold it, traded it, lost it in war or ceded it to
anybody in any legally or historically recognized way.  The provincial
government is illegally expropriating resources without compensation.  When
they grant timber or oil leases they don't have the right to do it.  The
resources belong to the Lubicon people.  

The Lubicon position with regard to reserve land is no less reserve land than
was retained by the aboriginal people who signed Treaty 8.  That's reserve
land.  On the reserve the resources would still be theirs.  If somebody wanted
to harvest trees on reserve they'd have to deal with the Lubicon people.  

With regard to the bigger traditional area the Lubicon people are prepared to
talk about ceding certain rights, like the rights to sub-surface resources,
but they intend to retain wildlife management and environmental protection
rights.  

There were talks with the Province following Grimshaw and a proposal for
shared jurisdiction in the bigger traditional area was seriously considered. 
It would work like this.

The Province is divided into what are called Wildlife Management Units or
WMUs.  You can have different rules and regulations in these different WMUs. 
In some you can hunt cow moose, in other areas you cannot -- that sort of
thing.  

The idea discussed with the Province was to set up a special Lubicon WMU.  It
would be established under provincial law but couldn't be changed by either
party unilaterally.  It would be governed by a committee consisting of -- and
I'll have to double-check the numbers -- but it's something like 3 Lubicons,
one from the Cadotte Lake community, one from the Loon Lake community, one
from Provincial Fish and Wildlife and one from the Peace River Fish and Game
Association.  This committee would determine how much big game could be taken,
how much big game was necessary for Native subsistence, and consequently how
many tags could be sold to outsiders.  If, for example, you could take 500
moose and 300 were needed Native subsistence, 200 moose tags could be sold to
outsiders.  

With regard to trapping this committee would handle that too.  It would manage
the entire trapline system in the Lubicon WMU, provided only that no Native
trapline would be sold to an outsider.

One of the big problems with the current trapline system is that it's used by
the provincial government to tear aboriginal societies apart.  Originally when
Treaty 8 was signed the agreement with the aboriginal people was that they'd
be able to hunt, trap and fish as before.  The aboriginal signatories to
Treaty 8 refused to sign Treaty 8 until government representatives agreed to
this provision.  That was consequently the verbal agreement, but it's not what
the treaty says.  The written version of the Treaty says the aboriginal
signatories to the Treaty can hunt and trap on unpatented Crown land not
needed for non-aboriginal settlements, forestry mining or anything else non-
aboriginal people wanted to do with the land.  

In the 1930s non-aboriginal people started moving into aboriginal trapping
areas in Treaty 8 and the Indians -- some of whom had actually been literal
signatories to Treaty 8 -- objected, pointing out correctly that they'd been
promised that they'd be able to hunt, trap and fish as before.  Obviously they
couldn't hunt and trap as before with outsiders moving in and taking over
their traplines.

Consequently there was a lot of correspondence back and forth between the
federal and provincial governments during the 1930s about the possibility of
setting aside the entire northern part of the Province as an exclusive Indian
hunting, trapping and fishing area.  Ultimately the province ended this
discussion by setting up a provincial trapline registration system which was
supposedly to protect Indian traplines.  However before long this provincial
trapline registration system was being used by provincial officials to reward
friends and punish enemies.

In the early 1980s the provincial trapline registration system was used by the
provincial government in the Lubicon area as part of the government's
continuing efforts to divide and conquer the Lubicon people.  They'd threaten
to take a family trapline away from one person, for example, supposedly
because he wasn't working it hard enough, and then propose to give it to
somebody else in the community.  You can imagine the kind of tensions that
kind of arrangement would cause.  If people refused to go along with such
divide and conquer tactics, the government threatened to give the involved
trapline to an outsider.

So this Lubicon WMU committee would be solely responsible for managing area
traplines, provided only that area traplines could not be sold to outsiders.  

With regard to environmental concerns the committee would be responsible for
designating environmentally sensitive areas where no development would be
allowed.  There's a computerized system in Alberta which effectively excludes
such designated areas from those areas available for development.  Cemeteries
or special cultural areas would be one example.  Special wildlife breeding
areas would be another.  The committee would be responsible for designating
all such sites in the Lubicon WMU.

Lastly the committee would be responsible for advising provincial regulatory
agencies with regard to rules and regulations governing logging, gas and oil
development, etc.  In these areas the committee would not actually be making
the rules and regulations but, taken together with the power it would have in
other areas, it would hopefully be able to effectively make its concerns heard
by those with that power.

Jennifer Klimek:  Has the Province agreed to that system?

Fred Lennarson:  The Province agreed to that system, but it's part of an
overall settlement agreement which has never been negotiated, plus it has now
been vastly complicated by creation of the Woodland Cree and this new Loon
River Band, because back when it was negotiated all of these communities were
consulted and agreed to this approach.  Now God knows what the situation is. 
I don't and I don't think anybody else does.  This was back in the days when
these communities all lived in this territory and tried to figure out ways how
to get along.  It was before the government came in and offered to give people
$1,000 per family member if they signed on the dotted line and then took it
out of their welfare.  It's created a hell of a mess.

Bernard Ominayak:  The understanding I had was that there was a broad
representation on this particular committee.  Given what has been said by
myself and also by Lennarson in regards to the proposed committee, I'd like to
hear what Norm Boucher has to say about it.  From a logger's point of view
would there be any great problems with what we're discussing?  I'm not trying
to put you on the spot but you know the business.

Norm Boucher:  ...I'm not sure I see a problem.  I think if look back at
logging the only thing that's changing is an FMA versus a quota.  Twelve years
ago we bought some timber rights...and now they brought in Daishowa and an FMA
and it seems like we can't do anything unless we go to Daishowa and ask them
what to do with our timber.  I don't think that's right.  I think, referring
back to what you're saying, it's very difficult for us to work under those
conditions.

Fred Lennarson:  What that FMA essentially does is transfer responsibility for
management of something like 18,000 square miles of Alberta forest to a
Japanese firm for a 20 year period.  It's an incredible situation.

Jacques Johnson:  Colleen?

Colleen McCrory:  I guess it's disappointing a bit that the Daishowa people
aren't going to be presenting, because there're a lot of questions I'd like to
ask them.  The big question is it a legally binding contract with the Forest
Management Agreement...I think the challenge out there is going to be if your
rights and trappers' rights supersede those rights...You can talk about forest
management and you can talk about wildlife -- but the big question is if they
continue to increase the volume of wood taken out of that Forest Management
Agreement, you can talk about wildlife all you want, they'll just keep cutting
down more trees.  And I think it would be interesting to see what the original
FMA is compared to what their new plans are, and really getting an independent
audit on whether that is sustainable for the northern part of this Province. 
Because it will eventually eat away at not only your rights, but also the
local contractors and local sawmill owners and eventually the big mills will
eat out the little mills.  It's been a pattern historically in British
Columbia.

Fred Lennarson:  We had an experience here where Bernard got a call from a
logger madder than hell because under that FMA he has to sell certain kinds of
trees to Daishowa.  So he proposed to sell them to Daishowa and Daishowa told
him it's in the Lubicon territory and they therefore won't buy them.  Well, it
wasn't in the Lubicon territory.  The logger called Bernard and said, "What's
the deal, Bernard?  I'm not in your territory."  And Bernard said, "That's
right and we never said that was in our territory and we gave Daishowa a map
which did not include that area and here's a copy of our map."  Well, the guy
comes up with a map that Daishowa gave him and it's about 3 times the size of
the area of concern to the Lubicons.  We've got I don't know how many loggers
mad as hell at the Lubicons because they think that the Lubicons are claiming
land on the other side of Nampa and so on and so forth.  But the Lubicons
didn't do it.  Where that Daishowa map came from is a very interesting
question.  Daishowa hems and haws and says maybe they got it from the Province
and the Province isn't talking.  They do this kind of thing all the time,
playing the loggers off against the aboriginal people in the area.

Jacques Johnson:  I would like to ask a question of Bernard.  We're talking
about Daishowa.  Unfortunately, the company decided not to appear before our
Commission.  I hope that we will have time none the less to verbalize some of
the questions that we would like to ask had they been there.  We'll probably
do that tomorrow if the Commission agrees.  It would be my suggestion.  But I
would like to ask just a simple question to the Chief.  Last fall the Vice-
President, Hamaoka, decided that they would not log on your traditional lands.

Have you had any contact with them since, or some assurance that they will not
log this fall or next year until there is a settlement?

Bernard Ominayak;  No.  We don't have any agreement at this point in time, or
an agreement such as you suggested.  We had an agreement in the past where
they wouldn't log within our traditional territory until the question of our
land rights has been resolved and they've tried to deny that agreement exists.

Rather what Hamaoka is doing is sending letters all over the country saying
that the federal government and the Lubicons are having productive discussions
and that people shouldn't be worried about Daishowa coming in and so on.

Fred Lennarson:  We can provide copies of those letters.

Jacques Johnson:  Are there any other questions to Bernard and the Council?

Menno Wiebe:  If the Vice-President of Daishowa made this commitment that they
would not cut timber on traditional Lubicon lands, and if they are adhering to
that, and maybe it would be good to get it in writing -- is there something
comparable in the oil industry?  

Bernard Ominayak:  As you pointed out, it's not in their interest to settle at
this point because they're collecting our resources and making billions of
dollars and forcing our people into this situation that we're under.  So I
think the longer that they can prolong the settlement, it's to their benefit. 
If and when all the resources are gone, then maybe they'll say, "Fine, take
whatever is there", whether it's a desert at that point or whatever.  Maybe
that's something the Commission could seriously look at and say, maybe we
should freeze all development in this area...I'm not trying to impose
anything, but as we're looking for ways and means on how best to come at this
situation, that's maybe one of the ways to go.  I don't know.  That's of
course entirely the decision of the Commission.

Jacques Johnson:  That's a good suggestion and I'm sure the Commission will be
looking at it.

Bernard Ominayak:  What the Lubicon people are faced with now is that we're
looking at the possibility of Daishowa trying to move in.  Even when we had
that agreement they tried to log, tried to get into our territory by buying
out these other mills all around us and going under the names of those mills
that they had bought out.  Like Buchanan -- they were one of them that we had
problems with.  Buchanan didn't send their people in.  They hired a sub-
contractor who was Native and then they sent him in.  They try to use Native-
against-Native.  Our position has been very clear from the start -- whoever it
is, whether they are pink, white, yellow or brown -- they're still trying to
steal our trees and that's what we're going to protect.

Jacques Johnson:  I might add in Mr. Hamaoka's refusal to appear before the
Commission he is proud to wax over the fact that they have showed great
sensitivity vis-a-vis the Lubicons by deciding not to log last fall and to
press upon the federal government their obligations to settle and providing
us...with a letter to sort of make sure that this would show a great
sensitivity on their part and be well known and appreciated.  I think maybe we
can invite them to continue to be sensitive.

Fred Lennarson:  ...They said both last year.  They said they were going in
last fall because they couldn't afford to stay out.  And there was an
international boycott called and a great brouhaha with demonstrations all over
the place and so on.  Then they got more sensitive.

Bernard Ominayak:  Father, it seems like you know the same Tom Hamaoka anyway.

Jacques Johnson:  Sandy?

Sandy Day:  The women are having to leave now because of child care so if they
want to we can get together after the meeting.

Jacques Johnson:  I know this was an issue that was brought to the Chair
during the break, the fact that some of the members of the Commission over
coffee during the break discovered all kinds of issues raised by the Lubicon
women in terms of the real daily chores, the difficulties that they have to
face that was not really verbalized completely in the very moving submission
to this Commission.  The suggestion was made to give the Lubicon women another
opportunity to share some more with the Commission.  Would you suggest that
this be done informally as during the break, rather than formally?

Michael Asch:  Maybe we should adjourn?

Jacques Johnson:  We have some movement across the hall without adjourning. 
Does anybody propose that we adjourn or do you agree that we should?

Menno Wiebe:  I agree.  I do want to make one little comment if I may.  I
would just like to draw the attention, maybe it's obvious, but to the
international nature of this gathering.  We couldn't get it in Edmonton, but I
see the U.S. Nation is here and the Canadian Nation is here, and the Swiss
Nation is here, the Lubicon Nation is here, the Mohawk Nation is here, plus
the German Nation is here, plus the 13 members represented by Heinz Lippuner. 
Add that all up and we have 19 Nations represented at this Commission hearing.

To me that seems rather significant.  But it may be -- while that is
stretching the point a little bit colorfully -- but I remember from the
blockade when there were 13 different national news agencies from different
Nations at the blockade of October 1988, just to make the point that this is
not happening in a corner.  The world takes note of what is happening here. 
I'm just making these observations about something that has been rather
consistent.

Jacques Johnson:  This meeting is adjourned.  Thank you very much everybody
for your cooperation and your patience.