Transcript of Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review Public Hearing, November 02, 1992 Edmonton, Alberta Commission Members Present Jacques Johnson Jennifer Klimek Michael Asch Sandy Day Menno Wiebe John MacMillan Commission Members Absent Regena Crowchild Wilfred Barranoik Theresa McBean Don Aitken Normand Boucher Colleen McCrory Lubicon Representatives Present Chief Bernard Ominayak Lubicon Community Members Advisor Fred Lennarson Others Present The Hon. E. Davie Fulton John Goddard Jacques Johnson: I would like to call this meeting to order. I'm Jacques Johnson and I'm co-chair, along with Jennifer Klimek, for the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review. I would like first of all to welcome Mr. Fulton and to thank him for taking the time to come and meet with us and to spend at least the whole day and perhaps more if need be to cover some of the work that he has done on behalf of the federal government to bring clarification into the process of negotiations for settlement of the Lubicon people. I would like also to welcome the public who are here today and also the media people. I would like you to feel at home. There's coffee and tea available for you. There's a woman's washroom over here and a men's washroom back there. I would like to introduce the Commissioners, or rather ask them to introduce themselves immediately. Menno Wiebe: My name is Menno Wiebe. I represent the Aboriginal Rights Coalition which in turn represents nine of the national denominations across Canada formerly known as Project North. I'm here by appointment also of the Mennonite Central Committee of Canada. I serve in that capacity. We have connections in Lubicon Lake through some projects and communications directly with the Band on matters of land negotiation. I too welcome you here, Mr. Fulton, and I'm very glad that you're here. Jacques Johnson: I'm an Oblate Priest, head of the religious order that's been working with Native people in Canada for over 140 years. We are presently also serving the area of the Lubicons in our ministry and have been since the last century. Michael Asch: My name is Michael Asch. I'm a professor at the University of Alberta, teaching Anthropology and Native Studies and Law. I've worked for a number of years on issues relating to aboriginal rights, particularly in the North. I'm happy to welcome you here, Mr. Fulton. Jennifer Klimek: My name is Jennifer Klimek. I'm a lawyer in the City of Edmonton. I too would like to welcome you here, Mr. Fulton. Sandy Day: My name is Sandy Day. I live in High River, just south of Calgary. I run an environmental business and I've been involved in environmental issues for 7 years. Welcome. John MacMillan: My name is John MacMillan. I was born and raised in Peace River. I've worked in the north all my life. Jacques Johnson: I'd just like to say a word about our program. This morning we will conduct hearings until noon and then we'll resume again at 1:30 and go on until a reasonable hour -- 4:30-5:00 at the latest, I would imagine. We don't want to wear ourselves down. Tomorrow at 9:00 we will welcome Mr. John Goddard, the author of the book "The Last Stand of the Lubicon". And at 1:30 in the afternoon tomorrow we will welcome Mr. Bruce Koliger and Mr. John Krebes who represent two companies that the federal government and the Lubicons have agreed on to make an assessment of the costs that have been in great dispute for the last while and so they will make a presentation tomorrow afternoon at 1:30 of their findings. Mr. Fulton has been a good public servant for a long time. He's had a very long and rich public career. It all started out with the war where he served for five years as a soldier. In 1945 he was elected as a Member of Parliament and has served as such until 1968. A total of 21 years, if you exclude 2 years that he was not serving during that period. He was Federal Justice Minister from 1957 to 1963. Twice he was a contender for the party leadership of the Conservative Party. He served as a Justice on the British Columbia Supreme Court for 8 years, from 1973 to 1981. He was in private practice for a few years. And then in 1986 he was named a Commissioner of the International Joint Commission. For 3 years, from 1989 to 1992, he was chair of that Commission, which monitors the water between Canada and the United States and has a lot to do with the environment, the water levels, and so on and so forth. We are very grateful for your appearance before our Commission, Mr. Fulton, and I'm sure you have a lot to share with us. I would like to invite you to perhaps make an opening statement if you would. The Hon. E. Davie Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman and members of the Commission. I very much appreciate your welcome this morning. I hope that I'll be able to do something that will clarify some of the issues and the problems that have impeded settlement so far. If I can make any contribution towards bringing about a settlement of the Lubicon claim -- this long- outstanding and absolutely uniquely terribly procrastinated settlement -- I shall be grateful indeed, grateful to you for giving me the opportunity. You've asked me to make an opening statement. I'll be glad to do so. I haven't prepared a formal opening statement. But I think perhaps the best thing I could do would be to give an outline starting with the way in which I was commissioned, how we went about the job and how it concluded. I was asked by the Hon. David Crombie in 1985 to conduct an inquiry into the claims of the Lubicon Indian Band. I think I had come to Mr. Crombie's attention as somebody interested in the affairs and the problems of aboriginal Canadians because when in private practice in the early 1970s I had the privilege of representing a group of British Columbia Indians and I made a submission on their behalf to the then Minister, the Hon. Jean Chretian. To my surprise and dismay, although we had made the submission personally and gone to Ottawa to do it, and left written copies -- at that time I did have a formal statement to make -- I never heard a word from the Minister nor did my clients. Not a word, for some years. When Mr. Crombie became Minister I thought I would let him know this concern about the absence of any reply or any action on the submission I'd made and in that way I suppose I came to his attention as a person having an interest in the problems of Native nations. In any event, in 1985 Mr. Crombie asked me if I would be prepared to conduct an inquiry and I must say it came to me as a surprise -- I'd read something about it in the papers, but I had no knowledge of the details of the problem at all. I went to Ottawa to meet Mr. Crombie at his request and he told me that it was an extremely complicated matter involving a number of legal actions in the courts...and discussions pursued privately or outside the courts, and it was extremely complicated and he would be greatly obliged if I would conduct an inquiry to ascertain what were exactly the claims, to sort them out. What were the claims, what was the basis upon which the claims were rested -- not to pass an opinion upon but to find out on what basis the Indians, the Band made the claim, and also to ascertain the position of others who were involved with respect to those claims. I agreed to undertake that task and after some consultation and preliminary notification of those concerned, I met with the Band and Mr. Lennarson who was then involved -- and still is, I believe -- and Mr. James O'Reilly, who was then acting as their legal representative. Also with the representatives of the government of Alberta, the Minister then responsible being the Hon. Milton Pahl. And of course with senior administrators in the federal Department of Indian Affairs. We worked it out that I would ascertain precisely what were the Band's claims, discuss then with the Band, then meet formally with the representatives of the two governments separately and find out what was their position with regard to the claims -- the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta. And then meet with private interests affected, primarily the oil companies, the oil and gas development companies, plus a farming cooperative which was concerned, and anyone else who had interests that might be affected by the result of the outcome of the claims. In the course of those discussions it was agreed that while my original mission had been to sort out the claims and make a report on that basis, that the opportunity should be taken, because it appeared to be somewhat in the cards at that time, to see the extent to which at any rate I could bring about a reconciliation of the different positions or the conflicting positions. That was agreed as the process that I would follow. And it was also agreed that I would start with the Band's discussion paper that had been submitted to Mr. Crombie sometime before, outlining their claims. I would take that as a starting point for the claims. The process involved, as I say, the individual meetings first. I would then prepare a discussion paper outlining the claims, the position of each of the parties and exploring the possibilities of reconciliation for settlement. I would then meet with representatives of all parties with that discussion paper before us and see where we could get, how far we could get towards reducing the differences and coming up with some possible agreement. Then it proceeded accordingly. I held the necessary meetings and prepared a discussion paper which I think you have, some members of the Commission at any rate, which was supposed to serve as the basis for that final meeting, if you like, with the representatives of the parties. To my amazement and disappointment, although the discussions had proceeded amicably I thought, and constructively, the Alberta Minister -- Mr. Pahl -- took the position that he wasn't going to go any further with these inquiries, that it was a waste of time, that I had no authority in the matter, and that Alberta was not going to take any further part. After discussion with the Band and with Mr. Crombie, it was agreed that if Alberta would not take any part -- Alberta being so vitally affected and a concerned party -- there was really not any point in continuing my inquiry. That was where the matter was ended then. As far as I was concerned, I had delivered my discussion paper -- and incidentally, the question has frequently been asked why has that paper not been made public. Why can't you produce it? The paper is not my property. I was commissioned by the Federal Minister to make an inquiry and took the agreed course. I submitted my discussion paper. It is the property of the parties with whose agreement it was that I prepared that paper. I can't make it available but I understand you have it and I think it is fairly widely known to the public now. I will be referring to it, I expect, in the course of the proceedings here today. So that's the brief outline of the origin and course of my participation in the matter to-date. I should just add perhaps that after the discussion paper was delivered, and although I did not take any further official part as I was still in private practice for a year or so afterwards, I was concerned, was in touch with the Lubicon Band and did what I could to offer them advice as to how matters might proceed. They were very interested in the possibility of mediation and asked me if I would serve as mediator. I said yes. At that time, I would be prepared to do or assist in any way that I could. The discussion paper was delivered in early 1986. In the fall of 1986 or mid- summer I was appointed to the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission which is not a civil service job, but a public service position and I felt I couldn't take any further part, any further official part in the Lubicon matter. That situation continued until September of this year when my second term with the Commission expired so I now am a free agent and am very pleased indeed to come and say what I can and do what I can to help in the process of your inquiry. I trust that gives you the picture. Jacques Johnson: Thank you very much. It does indeed. Before we move into the meat of your report, I'd like to check out with the Commissioners if any of them would like to ask you further questions clarifying in certain senses your mandate, terms of reference or whatever. I would like to ask you an opening question. The other Commissioners will feel free to pursue their questions after I raise this first one. What major topics or issues or claims were you able to identify when you met with the Lubicons and then with the two levels of government? Davie Fulton: There were, as I recall, eight major areas of claim. They are outlined in the discussion paper and the structure was based on the paper submitted by the Band to Mr. Crombie which he showed me and asked me to sort out to find out what the claims are. As the discussion progressed, they resolved themselves into eight major areas. The first is the entitlement to a reserve. They were promised a reserve back in 1940 and still haven't got it. What is to be the size and the basis upon which that size is to be determined and to some extent the exact location -- these were the issues in the first head of claim. Secondly, sub-surface rights with reserve lands. Do they in fact have any entitlement to oil and gas rights and/or revenues from the reserve area? Thirdly, and very largely to the Band's concern, was the matter of wildlife management and environmental protection programs, because one of the facts of their life was that although they were without a reserve or any other source of income for sustenance, they had been deprived of and had lost their traditional source of livelihood derived from trapping and hunting. Because of the oil and gas development most of the wildlife had left their traditional area, virtually left, and they had virtually no income coming from that. So the question of wildlife management and environmental protection was very large in their minds. Next, employment opportunities and job creation. Here was a tremendous activity going on, particularly in the field of oil and gas development and they had virtually no employment nor opportunity for employment from it. Yet they had lost their livelihood, their means of livelihood from their traditional hunting and fishing and trapping activities. So the question is employment opportunities and job creation. Then the question of compensation. Ever since the oil and gas development began in about 1978-79, as I recall, increasingly their livelihood had diminished. They had suffered increasing loss. They had no, or virtually no compensation therefor. So compensation generally, and then sub-divided into compensation for past loss with respect to lands claimed as a reserve. They had no revenues from that, although oil and gas development had taken place on that reserve area. Secondly, compensation with respect to lands claimed as their traditional area, traditional hunting and trapping area. Oil and gas revenues have been coming from that and they have had no share from it. Should they have any compensation (a) with respect to the loss they've suffered and, (b) from the revenues which they have not shared? Next, compensation for future losses because they didn't know when there was going to be a settlement and these losses would presumably continue. That was a question. Then they made a claim for compensation for trespass, waste, and destruction of their culture and lifestyle -- a somewhat difficult compensation claim. But they said in effect, "Here, without our consent" -- they claim that aboriginal title still existed in this province -- "Without our consent, you have come on our area. You have not only inflicted this measurable loss" -- which we have discussed so far and which I just mentioned -- "but you've also affronted us, you've ruined our lifestyle, you've trespassed on and damaged our way of life and our culture." So they claim some general compensation on that basis. In addition they claim compensation for their costs to date of the litigation and all the other efforts that they've made. They've consulted with the lawyers and other experts and experts to advise them as to the nature and the basis of their claim and they had to borrow money extensively from the bank to pay their bills. Interest was mounting, so they wanted compensation for their costs to date. Then with regard to the future, they had a claim for catch-up benefits -- sorry, development and social benefit programs. They'd been promised a reserve at that time 50 years ago. They hadn't been settled on a reserve but they knew there would be a tremendous job in moving from where they were onto the reserve, getting the reserve set up and all those things which they had not had. They wanted to have a settlement made and then the costs of getting that settlement on the reserve met and met adequately. Development and Social Benefit programs, in general and with respect to education. And finally they claimed that they should have rights to self-government, including the right to determine who was a member or should be a member of the Band. That's a very controversial question because of the tremendous differences between the Band and particularly the government of Alberta and to some extent the government of Canada as to the size of the band, the number of members. This was of vital importance because under the treaty under which they were now claiming their entitlement to a reserve, the size of the reserve depends on the number of members in the band, the formula for determining. So you see how important it is to the Band to have some say in determining who are their members and the number of members. Those are the 8 heads of claims that we discussed, I discussed with the Band and with the governments...(change tapes)... Jacques Johnson: Let's tackle the first issue here -- the first claim -- which is the reserve. From our knowledge it seems that there has been an accord, an agreement, which is acceptable to the Lubicons and also to the two levels of government. My understanding is that they've received acknowledgement for 95 square miles of land, all with sub-surface rights except for 16 square miles -- 79 square miles with sub-surface rights. And this seems to be acceptable to them. In regards to this issue of land, in the last federal offer that the Lubicons rejected on August 6th I believe, which claimed to be worth $73 million -- $10.5 million was ascribed to the value of those 95 square miles as part of the package. What is your reaction to this new introduction on the part of the federal government to give a value to the land and be part of the total value of the settlement package? What would be your reaction to that? Davie Fulton: Well, personally I'm very pleased indeed that agreement has been arrived at as to the size and location of the reserve. During the time of my discussions, the location of the reserve was pretty well agreed upon, at the west end of Lubicon Lake and that any additional land would extend around the south and towards the east. But the size was only partially settled, and Alberta in particular at that time was taking a very intransigent position that only 127 members of the Band should be counted, 127 and no more, because that was the figure agreed upon way back in 1940 when the promise was first made. Indeed they said if more was claimed, Alberta would indeed question the 127. They said that they could prove that the Band wasn't as large as that. So this was a very vexed question. It so happened -- as I observed when informed afterwards -- that following the resignation of Mr. Pahl as Minister and Mr. Getty's succession to Mr. Lougheed as Premier of Alberta, the position of the government of Alberta changed fundamentally on that and some other questions I believe with regards to the Lubicon claim. And Mr. Getty met with the Chief -- I was advised of these things -- and indicated that there wouldn't be much difficulty in getting agreement on the size of the reserve based upon Band membership of something in the order of 500, I believe. And that I gather has now been agreed. So there is no more problem, as I understand it, with regard to the size of the membership of the Band which would form the basis of the claim, or area that is, and the location of the reserve and the size thereof. I had suggested -- it appeared to me that there was going to be a larger entitlement to a reserve in 1986 than had been the case in 1940 -- that the federal government should consider buying the extra land from Alberta over and above what was agreed in 1940 and I think that was something that would have been considered. I don't know if the federal government has offered that to Alberta or not. If they do then of course there will be some cost to the federal government. But again, coming to the question as to whether that amount -- $10 million as the value of the reserve land should be included as if it were part of an overall settlement that they were offering -- it seems that hardly follows, because back in 1940 the Band was promised a reserve as treaty Indians -- or that they will be -- treaty Indians...when this is all settled and agreed. Then they will of course be entitled to a reserve. So it seems to me, that claim, if you like, that feature, is a special part of this whole settlement and it's not quite logical to say, "Look, we're offering you a settlement of X million or hundred million dollars of which a substantial portion is the reserve." Because that's not part of the settlement. The area has to be settled and the location, but not the entitlement. So I essentially object to that approach. It would be my recommendation... Michael Asch: I want to go over with you the process again by which you were put into the position that you found yourself in and exactly what it was that you were expected to do. And then I want to address -- because no one here knows except those who have managed to read the document by hook or crook -- some of the things that you concluded. So it's not just a single question. This is the kind of thing that I'm trying to do. So I understand that you were invited particularly by the Hon. Mr. Crombie, but with the acceptance of and invitation I presume by the Government of Alberta and the Lubicon Band to do an examination as a neutral party, as a party that would not have a vested interest in any settlement? Davie Fulton: That's correct, yes. Michael Asch: What kind of discussions did you go into with the parties, what kind of time, what kind of involvement did you have in order to try to gain some knowledge of the situation? Davie Fulton: I met with them separately. I met with the Band first, and then I think the government of Alberta and then representatives of the government of Canada, in order to, as I said, to endeavour to arrive at an understanding of what were the Band's claims and the basis upon which they rested each claim. Then I would meet with the government of Alberta and outline to them what I had heard about the Band's claims and asked them what their position was. Whether they agreed or objected and on what basis they rested their rejection if any -- sorry, I should mention first I had met with them to discuss the process, and it was agreed that this would be the process, then I carried out the process of separate meetings with each of them. It was agreed also that in the course of all this process I would endeavour to suggest areas of agreement or possible compromise and settlement. So I would explore those and prepare a discussion paper on that basis, which is the discussion paper I presented. So that was the process I followed. Then, as I said, I met with the Band and discussed in detail what their claims were, what their position was. I met with Alberta and discussed in detail and found out what their position was and similarly with the government of Canada, on each one of the claims, these 8 claims that I've outlined. And that was the basis of my discussion paper. The purpose of the paper at that time was not only to establish and clarify the claims, what were the claims and the positions of the parties, but also to suggest areas of agreement -- isolate and identify areas of agreement and suggest areas of compromise or possible settlement where there was no agreement. Michael Asch: So that part of your mandate was indeed to provide input into trying to resolve the question, not just to fact-find and state where the parties were at, but to provide... Davie Fulton: What could be sensibly based on what I'd heard. But not to suggest my own opinion or findings, not to make findings. That was not my function or mandate at any time. It was to explore possibilities of settlement. Michael Asch: And the process that you went through, this encounter, it necessitated a number of meetings with these people at certain times? Davie Fulton: Yes. Michael Asch: Okay. I'm going to use the phrase "what you found"....not in legal terms -- but what you found out, I suppose would be a way of putting it, because it would be very helpful to us -- although we've read the document -- to get some idea at that particular moment, which is, as far as I can see, the last time -- in fact the only time -- that we've had a party that's been agreed upon by all sides to go and look at this situation. That's an important snapshot of a particular moment to see where the various parties were at so that we might ourselves see, looking in the last 6 or 7 years, what changes have been made and where they're going now. If you wouldn't mind spending a few minutes going over what you saw in terms of the areas of agreement and disagreement and some avenues that you sought towards a solution if that's not too convoluted a question? Davie Fulton: The discussion paper's a fair length -- I think it's 80 some pages. Michael Asch: I realize that. Davie Fulton: But I'll do my best and do my best to keep it brief also, reasonably brief. On the reserve entitlement, I think that we discussed that and it appears now that that is no longer a problem in terms of the size of the reserve and the location and the fact that most of it carries sub-surface, mineral rights as well. With respect to the wildlife management and protection programs, as the discussion paper makes clear, I felt very optimistic that there was going to be an agreement forthcoming there because while details were not agreed, it was generally recognized that the Band was dependent, and might be for some years, on income, livelihood, from wildlife; and that therefore the parties should explore the possibility of measures to preserve and/or restore the wildlife population and protect it as such. Indeed there was agreement in one area; that it might not be possible to re-introduce the moose because you can't move them around so readily, but there is a form of animal, an elk-type of animal that might be introduced to take the place of the moose. Moose hides and meat had been a very important part of the livelihood, the living of the Band. And there was agreement that those measures, under the aegis of the government of Alberta, for the restoration and protection of the wildlife should be taken in consultation with the oil and gas industries and others who were concerned. That was about as far as actual agreement went. That those things should be discussed. One of the unresolved areas, of course, was where priority should be given to those conflicts -- to development or to protection of wildlife. I took the liberty in suggesting in my paper that wildlife should have the priority where there was an irreconcilable conflict, not just because of the fact of whatever right the Indians in the legal or technical sense had, but because of the nature of the environment itself. Usually one can proceed with development along certain lines, even if you limit development by not going into a certain area. You can get around the difficulties. But if you destroy the wildlife, then it's irreversible. And we're just coming to realize that surely in our environmental studies; that we cannot go on without any regard to the consequences of destroying our environment. So it seems to me that there is an argument that, where there's an irreconcilable conflict, wildlife should have priority and I made that suggestion, but there was no agreement on it. With regard to employment opportunities and job training, I was glad to find that there was a very large measure of agreement, particularly with the oil and gas companies concerned, that in principle they should provide priority to Band members in terms of employment, if that's feasible, and indeed job training programs could be provided and would be provided by them. They were willing to do that, to train members of the Band so that they might qualify for employment. To an extent the livelihood of Band members had been ruined on the one hand by the activities of these companies, and the companies recognized that they had an obligation which they were prepared to accept that they should make an alternative means of livelihood available to these people. There was agreement there. One of the difficulties was the Alberta statute against discrimination in employment -- there was a problem with that statute if the oil companies gave preference to employment of the Indians. I believe there's a provision in that Act that the government can prescribe areas where it doesn't apply. So the way it was left in my discussion paper was that there was agreement in principle with the details still to be worked out. Next was the question of compensation, but of course there was very little agreement on that. I think there was general acceptance of the claim with respect to compensation for loss of revenue from the reserve area. They had been promised a reserve in 1940. Had they been given it, then the title to the reserve, the technical, legal title would be vested in the government of Canada and held in trust for the Indians, so any revenues from oil and gas would be also held in trust for the Indians. And royalties and so on would have been for the Band. But they didn't have the reserve, not withstanding that 50 years had gone by, and development had gone on for 20 years or so -- 15 years probably -- without a cent coming to the Band. So there was general agreement on that head of compensation. In the loss of treaty benefits and programs and services, the government of Canada seemed generally to accept in principle that they were responsible for providing those treaty benefits and programs and services that the Indians would have received had the reserve been set up within a reasonable time after the promise was made. The amount was in dispute on the basis of settlement, but not the principle as I recall. Now with respect to the land claim of the traditional area, a much more difficult situation exists. There's no question, it was established, that the Band did use a very large area as its traditional hunting and trapping area. This was outside the reserve claim. They said, "That is our area. We still have Native title there. We were never party to the treaty, therefore our title was not extinguished, so we still have the right to claim the benefits of whatever goes on in that land. And since you have deprived us of the benefit of the hunting and trapping, although the treaty says that the Indians will have the right to hunt and trap as before on unoccupied Crown land" -- the Band took the position -- "there you are, you must recognize our right, that we're entitled to compensation for the loss of that land, the loss has come to us as a result of the elimination of the wildlife." Both governments of course -- well, the government of Alberta said they have no claim against Alberta here because it's a claim against the government of Canada. The government of Canada took the position then, and I believe still does, that there's no claim based on Native title because by the treaty -- although the Lubicon Indians were not a party to the treaty, they were not discovered at that time, as it were -- nevertheless, by the treaty itself, Native title in the whole area of the treaty was extinguished. Therefore there can be no claims based on Native title and specifically no claims for loss of livelihood from the traditional lands. Or for loss of the oil and gas revenue from that area. That was the government of Canada's position, which Alberta of course totally supports. I had, in my discussion paper -- and I won't go into the details here -- suggested that, while not wishing to say that the Indians don't have a claim based on Native title and only have a claim based on treaty rights -- I'm not saying that, I'm not taking that position -- but I had suggested that you don't need to take either one of those positions to find that the Indians have in equity a valid and recognizable and therefore sustainable claim. Because under the treaty Indians were promised the right to continue hunting and trapping as of yore, as formerly. When the land was transferred to Alberta in 1930, it was agreed between the governments of Alberta and Canada that that right of the Indians to hunt and trap should continue. And indeed the words were used, in effect, that "in order to insure the continuation the supply of wildlife to support the Indians' needs". The governments agreed -- there was recognition -- that the Indians had a right to continue that livelihood. If they had a right to the continuation of it, surely they had a right to expect the continuation of the source; namely the wildlife itself. In other words, if you drive the wildlife away or permit the wildlife to be driven away by issuing exploration and development permits, then you are depriving the Indians of a right which you have recognized they have. So let's not be formalistic as to whether it is title-based or treaty-based. There's a right which was recognized and which would give rise to an equitable claim -- and law and equity are no strangers was the wording I used. I also suggested -- not in the discussion paper but separately, and I think it should be considered again -- that while I hoped that the main effort would be made to arrive at settlement on the basis I have just outlined and outlined in the discussion paper, and that should be the basis and the governments should come up with the best offer they think they can make on that basis -- my view is that, if they make a generous offer the Band would accept it and that Native title might become a side issue. If an offer is made. If however it's found not to be acceptable after every effort has been made, then I think the government of Canada might consider a special reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of Native title. Was Native title in these circumstances extinguished by the treaty? That's a question of law. They could get a relatively quick answer. Next was the matter of compensation for future losses. I think again much the same reasoning applies -- that is if settlement is arrived at along the lines just discussed, especially with employment opportunities and job training and wildlife management and protection, then the claim for future losses I think you'll find doesn't amount to much. I had the feeling that the Band would not press those issues to any extent. Next, compensation for trespass, waste and destruction of culture and lifestyle -- that's a very difficult claim. I discussed it with both the Band and the governments and of course there's no real area of agreement. I won't discuss the details that I discussed in the paper. As I said, it's a unique claim, an interesting one, but I find it rather difficult to contemplate that there could be a separate claim for that because in a sense every time that an Indian area has been settled by a white civilization which is different from the Native civilization -- whether it be in the east or the west, the north or the south -- changes in lifestyle have followed. It seems to be one of the inevitable features, if you like, of the society, the world that we live in. Therefore I don't know of any kind of claim on this basis that has been made. You come along and disturb their lifestyle, so we have a claim of trespass? I'm only saying that it seems to be a very difficult claim to maintain in court. But again, it seems to me that if there was a generous settlement -- and I don't mean unreasonably generous, I mean a settlement that takes into account all the suffering and the inequities that they have experienced -- if there were that kind of settlement I would suggest probably the claim I just mentioned would not be pursued. On the Band's costs to date, the facts seem to speak for themselves. To the extent that they have valid claims, they should be compensated for their costs of pursuing them. The government of Canada has said -- and I believe the government of Alberta has agreed that where it's responsible it will give support -- that once overall agreement is reached, there will be as speedy as possible a settlement on the reserve and infrastructure necessary to support a way of life. So I don't think that will present any problem once an overall settlement is agreed upon. The right to self-government, including the determination of membership -- again, while that was not -- at that time it was a very separate thing -- now it seems to be subsumed by the discussions going on -- and I hope they'll continue -- on the overall right of Native self-government.