Michael Asch: Still at the time when you... Davie Fulton: Pardon? Michael Asch: Still, at the time, when you did your report... Davie Fulton: The claim then was for the right to self-government including such matters as self-policing, the right to administer the affairs of the reserve, housing and so on. It would seem to me -- as I said in the discussion paper -- the position was reasonable and I have no reason to change what I said in the discussion paper on that matter. Michael Asch: That's really basically the information that I wanted -- it was my impression in reading the document that you had a -- excuse me for characterizing -- but it seems to me a fairly optimistic view, or at least there was a sense of optimism, that these issues could be resolved. That the distance wasn't so great that a settlement couldn't in fact be derived fairly soon. Was that the way you felt at that time? Davie Fulton: Yes. Not in terms necessarily of time of implementation, because there would be lots of complicated discussions and negotiations based on such matters as genealogical studies and so on, plus the protection of wildlife, etc. But agreement in principle, I entirely agree, at that time I believed might be very soon forthcoming. I was obviously wrong there. Perhaps a little bit of history there won't hurt. As I said, with the change in the Alberta government -- Mr. Getty taking over the government and Mr. Pahl leaving -- the position of Alberta in certain very fundamental areas changed very positively and very constructively in favor of the Band. Unfortunately, the same did not seem to be -- at least in my impression -- the same could not be said in the federal area. Mr. Crombie was succeeded by Mr. McKnight as Minister responsible for Indian Affairs very shortly after my discussion paper was prepared. While I wasn't party to any of the negotiations between the government and the Band after the discussion paper, I was informed and from time to time, consulted if you like by telephone, particularly with regard to the possibility of mediation that would be discussed between the Band and the government of Canada. The Band asked if I would be prepared to serve in some capacity in the mediation process and I said yes, I would. Then I gather it was put before the federal government, about the possibility of my being chairman of a mediation panel. Mr. McKnight's position was "Never, Mr. Fulton is prejudiced." He used the word publicly. He made that statement publicly, that I was prejudiced in favor of the Band. He said, "We couldn't possibly have him as a mediator." To which my answer was, and I put it in a letter to Mr. McKnight, "You apparently don't understand the proper sense and meaning of the word `prejudice', because prejudice is a position you take based upon a lack of the knowledge of the facts or deliberate disregard for the facts and you come to a conclusion notwithstanding what the facts may be; whereas sympathy, on the other hand, is a conclusion you arrive at based upon knowledge of the facts. And I'd be guilty of sympathy because I know the facts now. But I am not prejudiced." I never had an answer to that letter. But apparently the position then of the federal government became, you know, "What Fulton said in the discussion paper is not very useful." Michael Asch: So you would conclude that there were some political changes that happened -- first the attitude of the Alberta government and then subsequently the attitude of the federal government -- that precluded continuing along the lines that you had laid out and that in fact stopped any optimistic possibilities? Davie Fulton: It seems to me that that was the case. Michael Asch: Do you have any idea right now about what we as a panel might do, what kinds of assistance we might give to create an atmosphere again where it might be possible to reach what I would consider, characterize as a high- water mark -- the possibility of solving the Lubicon situation that you achieved? Davie Fulton: I can't help wondering whether one of the obstacles to progress has not been the fear of creating a precedent that might affect settlement of other claims. That word was used several times in my discussions I had with both Alberta and Ottawa -- with Departmental officers. My answer to that generally was that I can't see this being a precedent because this is an entirely unique set of circumstances. Never before in our history -- and let's hope never again -- has a situation existed where a Band was promised, over 50 years ago, a settlement and a reserve that would have given them a livelihood, set them up in that way so that they wouldn't have suffered so dreadfully from the loss of their other form of livelihood and they would have had other benefits follow from it -- promises which had not been fulfilled, which have been stymied, which have been met with obfuscation and difficulties by the very people responsible for implementing the promise. The federal government took various steps which abdicated the obligation that they had undertaken. Steps taken by the government of Alberta to make it impossible for the Band to pursue the claim, such as the passage of retroactive legislation. The Band had then filed a caveat against certain steps being taken to interfere with the area being claimed, the traditional area, and the government of Alberta passed legislation retroactively destroying the right to filing a caveat -- a dreadful sort of thing to do. Physical poverty resulting from the loss of livelihood. Disease. And all the obfuscation and destruction that's gone on. It seems to me that those facts -- plus, as I said, the very fact that never before, and I hope never again, has a promise been made and for 50 years never been fulfilled -- makes this situation a unique one. So a generous settlement recognizing the equity of the situation could not possibly serve as a precedent for other settlements, because there's no other such situation. If that fact could be explored and perhaps discussed with the members of the panel so that it would remove the fear of a precedent, then that might open the avenue towards a settlement. Michael Asch: Thank you. I have lots of other questions but I think I'll share the microphone with others. Jacques Johnson: We have been sitting for over an hour. Perhaps we deserve a little break, say a 5 minute stand-up. There's also coffee and tea available if you wish to avail yourself of it. We should resume in about 5 minutes or so. Jennifer Klimek: Mr. Fulton, I'd like to elaborate a bit on the precedent discussion you were having before that this may not be a precedent for other land claims. But we've been hearing some people put forward that the other land claims which have been settled are much less than what the Lubicons are asking for and that should be used as a precedent for looking at their claim. Do you have any views on that argument? Davie Fulton: Well, I think the answer I would make is that the Lubicon claim should be judged on its own merits. My impression is that if the facts are analyzed, it wouldn't be a precedent for other claims. If you get a generous settlement for the Lubicons, and then make some mathematical calculations and say that these would apply elsewhere, then you could probably show that it doesn't apply because other situations are not the same. It seems to me also, as I said, any settlement has to take into account the facts of the treatment to which the Lubicons have been exposed over all these years, or lack of treatment if you like, lack of progress in settling and dealing with their claim and then obfuscation and frustration once the claim became formalized. I'm proud to be a Canadian, but I'm dreadfully sorry about this instance, and I hope it's the only one in the history of our country. And that it will soon be settled and that there will never be another one. Jennifer Klimek: Thank you. The second question -- this is back to the process a bit. Once the discussion paper was done, I understand the object was to come back and work on it. Did you get any feedback -- other than it's a waste of time from the provincial government -- as to why they didn't want to go ahead with it and from the federal government as to whether they were willing to advance with this had the province not scuttled it? Davie Fulton: No, I got no feedback at all. I must say I was, from time to time, surprised at that, but I had no official communication. The only thing I've ever had was from the Band itself. And Mr. McKnight's statement made publicly that I was prejudiced. I've had no other communication officially from either government. Sandy Day: Mr. Fulton, upon reading the discussion paper I couldn't help but be impressed by a sense of objectivity and also a sense of fury almost between the parties because there was a history of what had happened up to that point and I too feel such dismay that nothing happened. It doesn't seem like there is a logical explanation. I'd also wondered was the paper studied at all? Was there any report done on it? Davie Fulton: Not to my knowledge. I daresay it was studied. I daresay it was considered at least in the Department. But I don't know what report was made to the Minister on it. As I say, my impression was from time to time that senior officials in the Department were concerned about the matter of precedent. Would this be a precedent for settlement, say, with one of the other six isolated communities in this general area? That sort of thing. And indeed for treatment perhaps with respect to other Indian claims. But again my general position has been that I don't see how it could be a precedent because there's no parallel to their position. Incidentally, I understand and I might make a comment, that there is a formal federal offer with reasons and a considered position on the table. And there's also a formal and considered Band analysis and response to that offer. I would -- it seems to be that perhaps one should start from there now, and try and bring the parties together and see if you can mediate a settlement or make some finding perhaps on the basis of the two positions that are outlined. I don't want to appear to say that the government of Canada has made no move. They may not have moved in the direction that one would like, but I understand now that they have made this formal offer. Perhaps that needs analysis and response on the basis of the facts. Sandy Day: Thank you for that information. I'd also like to address specifically the wildlife management and environmental protection program. I'd like to just revisit that. I'd like to read from your paper if I may. "The wildlife resource is the vulnerable one. If it is not protected it ceases to exist and with it goes the whole lifestyle and living which depend upon it. It is the continuation of wildlife which is threatened by development, not development which is threatened to the point of extinction by continuation of wildlife. There must be very few, if any, situations where development cannot be effectively continued notwithstanding the necessity of modification of a particular program or alteration of a particular location." When I read those words I find them very poetic and profound. I also see where they spread out beyond even that situation. I'd like to ask from your dealings with trying to set this up, look at this management program, can you expand on it or let us know where it led you to? You seem to sound very hopeful on that. Is there a possibility of continuing into that area? Davie Fulton: On the basis of my discussions with the government of Alberta in particular, which is summarized in that portion of the paper, I was led to hope and believe that Alberta was sympathetic to the idea of a joint wildlife management program which would be operated under their supervision with the cooperation of the Band and the development companies. Up until the time that I filed the discussion paper, I had no reason to suppose otherwise. I've never heard that Alberta rejected that. It's simply that nothing has happened, I gather. I don't know why. I suppose perhaps because it would only happen as part of an overall settlement. Sandy Day: That's a thought that arises in my mind, too -- that some of these issues seem like they could proceed but they all hinge on a whole. Do you have any perception of that? Is there a way to unhinge some of them? Do you have a sense of that? Or does it all have to go as one complete package? Davie Fulton: I don't think it does. Looking at it from the outside and trying to be impartial, I would agree with you that there are some areas, such as this one I think, which could be taken and dealt with separately. But then you get, I suppose, into a bargaining position. I regret to say that that may be what's happening, that those who are asked to make the overall settlement and at whose cost it will be don't want to give away anything first. Maybe they want to keep everything on the bargaining table until an overall agreement is arrived at. I don't know. I see no reason in principle or in law or in anything else why this could not be dealt with separately. And some of the other issues. Incidentally, one of the things I think that might be again emphasized is the Band's own positions and statements that they do not anticipate that they will be insisting in perpetuity on the right and the need for hunting and trapping as their main support and livelihood. They expect that their people might well want, in fact, to follow another way of life. But they don't want them to be forced into the 20th century. They want it to be of their own accord. But there are people in the band now who know no other way of life. Therefore this management program is of vital importance to them. That should be taken into account... Jennifer Klimek: Mr. Fulton, when you were looking at this did you have any sense of the negotiation strategies or the processes, because it seems there is an impasse now. My sense of it is that every day that goes by, the Lubicons fall further and further behind. At this point, the government doesn't have -- the status quo benefits them. Do you have any sense of that or how that could be dealt with? Davie Fulton: I'm afraid that I haven't. It's a statement, a position which I hope is not the actual one because it is so appalling to think that a government would take the position, "As long as we stall, the less Lubicons there will be." But what you've said is, from my knowledge, quite true, because the facts came to my attention after I started the inquiry, as to just how appalling this situation is for the Lubicons and the crunch that they're undergoing, increasing hardship as a result -- still births, disease, and so on, indications of poverty. That surely should make any government desirous of making an immediate settlement. I find it appalling that the suggestion should be made that they're prepared to let this go on and just let matters take their own course. And yet that's the conclusion, I suppose, that must be drawn if in fact a settlement is inevitably postponed. But I can't reach any conclusion. I'm just amazed. It's almost impossible to believe the government could take that position. But I'd have to say facts speak louder than words. Menno Wiebe: Mr. Fulton, I would like to follow up a little further on the wildlife management matter. Given the principle that you established in your report that conflicts, if they arise, should be resolved by giving priority to wildlife over development, you also recommended that there be a joint management of wildlife -- observations from other land claim agreements elsewhere makes one a little leery of joint management programs because it almost always means advisory status rather than authority on the part of the Native groups. Could you see an authority structure in the wildlife management that would be a counterpart to what you recommended in principle; namely that the actual management of wildlife be accorded to the Lubicon people with technical expertise as they would require it, but that actual decision-making rather than advisory capacity would be their own? Davie Fulton: That would be a matter that would have to be settled between the parties. It seems to me that it would be difficult, probably, to agree that the Lubicons should have all the decision-making because the question of conflicts would arise. The proposal is, in my discussion paper, that where there can be a compromise then that be worked out. In other words, if a proposal, say by a developer, is going to result in some damage to wildlife, then see if some compromise could be worked out. They could offer to have the proposal altered somewhat, and maybe the wildlife management altered somewhat if that could be done without permanent damage or unacceptable damage to either. But where there is no such compromise, then I suggest that the priority should be given to wildlife. But as to who would make the decision as to whether compromise is possible or advisable, it seems to me that it would be difficult to think that one of the interested parties should make that decision by themselves. I would agree with you, however, that the execution of the wildlife management program could well be left with the Band, if that was their objective and their desire. That would be part of the decision-making process between three parties with opposing interests. Menno Wiebe: Maybe I could just clarify. I ask that question on the principle that we think Canada or the Provinces appoint those people who are most knowledgeable about the areas of expertise when the people who have hunted for 20,000 years probably know most about the landscape and the environment but their wisdom is often not acknowledged in the actual administration. But we will take into consideration what you said. Davie Fulton: In the management of it, I think the Band should have the major, if not the sole, responsibility. But in the decision-making it seems to me it would have to be a joint process or an arbitration or a mediation process, where irreconcilable conflict arises. Menno Wiebe: If permitted I'd like to ask another non-related question, and that goes back to the reserve allocation. You made reference in your findings to the 1930 Resource Transfer Act, which I understand obligates the Province to allocate reserve areas in those areas or with reference to those Bands that have treaty land by way of entitlement? Davie Fulton: Yes. Menno Wiebe: However, in your recommendations, you suggest that some of the land be transferred, and that would be done at the expense or the Province would have to allocate, but the remainder was to be paid for out of the federal coffers -- if I understand your report correctly. In other words, divided. How does that reconcile with the Resource Transfer Act?...(change tapes)... Davie Fulton: My point was that had the federal government undertaking been carried out at the time that Alberta agreed to it, then that would have been the end of it and Alberta would have accepted that. What Alberta was then subjected to, in my discussions with them, was that they would now be asked to devote a substantially larger tract of now known valuable land. In 1940, the value was not known. Oil and gas had not been discovered yet. It did seem to me that in fairness or equity, if you like, that payment should be made by the federal government because they were responsible for the delaying of a settlement, therefore they should bear the cost. I put that forward as a possible ground that might make it acceptable for Alberta to agree to the larger area. But I understand now that agreement has been made, or arrived at, on the basis of the area. So I would be a little bit leery of re-opening that question if in fact there is agreement between the Band and the two governments. Menno Wiebe: If I'm permitted, I'd like to ask a third question of a very general nature, but which underlies what we're doing here. That has to do with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have observed over the long haul that this dual portfolio of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is often quite paradoxical in nature but housed within one Department. As an expert in the area of law, second to none, and with your status in government, I'm wondering if you would give some clarification as to the paradoxical nature of these often conflicting two portfolios within one Department as it pertains to the Lubicon case. Davie Fulton: What you're saying is that the idea of a Department having joint responsibility for Indian Affairs on the one hand, which is below the Territories, and Northern Development which includes the Territories, is incongruous and somehow in conflict? Menno Wiebe: I'm suggesting the Indian Affairs sector of the division by mandate is to undergird the justice for aboriginal peoples, but Northern Development almost always is on the side of development, and those two are frequently in conflict. Davie Fulton: I hope that as I understand it, there's some ground for it, that increasingly Northern Development will take account of the interests and position of the Inuit and other Native peoples there. So to some extent it seems to me there is a parallel, if not exactly a similarity. The interests of the Natives in the north have to be reconciled with the interests of development. And here, in this area anyway, the problem of development and the interests of Natives, again, have to be reconciled and justice done to the Indians. I haven't done an analysis of the matter or a close study of it so I couldn't go beyond that. It seems to me that there is room for the other as well. Jacques Johnson: I would like to ask you about the membership of the Band. How do you see the decision as to who is part of the Band be made? By the Band alone? What is the role of the government in it? You have certainly studied that. What would be your recommendation on the basis of your studies? Davie Fulton: I think I put it in the discussion paper. I'm not quite sure what progress has been made on it since. I speak with some hesitation, because I don't want to take a position contrary to any desirable progress that's been made in resolving the dispute. But my suggestion at that time was that a panel of genealogical experts be convened or on the other hand, that those who had been responsible for the studies to that date be called forward so discussions could take place on the basis of information as to how the conclusions were arrived at. And then a decision made as to which is the correct conclusion. The studies are necessary because the detail is -- I think the facts, I think it's correct to say that the facts support the Band's contention that over the years numbers of their members were included on other Band lists who did not desire to be on those Band lists and who made no move to become members of those Bands. This was because they attended treaty functions at which time treaty benefits would be paid out -- the Lubicons, not being recognized by the treaty, did not receive those benefits and no such function ever involved them. They went to meetings where other Bands were being paid and asked for treaty benefits. And because they were there with other Bands, they were automatically put on that Band list, although that was not their intention or desire when they went there. Now their descendants are told, "Here, you are descendants of people who were members of another Band. Therefore you cannot be Lubicon." That was the position taken in a number of cases. And genealogical studies, I believe, have supported the contention that in many cases it can be proven that those people who now ask to be recognized as Lubicon are descendants of people who should not have been included in other Bands. So that's the kind of study that's necessary and I understand has been carried out. And what I'm suggesting is that those who carried out the study be called together and then a decision be made as to what was the actual proper number of the Band on that basis. But a decision would involve some further negotiations of course, or if agreement doesn't come that way then arbitration or mediation. Your Commission might want to have that kind of expert hearing, a hearing of experts, if there is still a dispute. But as I say, if in fact there's agreement on the size of the reserve and the numbers to be counted on that basis, then perhaps it's not wise to open it up. I don't know what the situation is. Jacques Johnson: Well, there seems to have been an agreement between all parties concerned, because when the size of the land was decided it was on the basis of a certain number of people, in the area of 500 people. But from what I understand now the government is questioning the membership again. The understanding is that they want to question this all over again. I think this came out this summer. So I was wondering if you had any knowledge or this, or at least any opinion on how membership should be arrived at. Davie Fulton: I think on the basis that I said, on the facts that would be established by that study, the genealogical facts of the situation, whether those people who are now registered members of other Bands should have been so categorized. Then there is a definition of membership, I think, in the Indian Act which I suppose tends to be ignored. But it's a matter, it seems to me, of a count made on the basis of ascertained facts, who in fact are members of the Band on the basis of the stated facts. Michael Asch: I'm mindful of the fact that it's ten minutes to twelve. We agreed that we would break for lunch at noon. We didn't ask you a really simple question when you explained to us what process you had gone through; and that is, how long did it take you to go through the process from the time that you agreed to undertake this to the time that you wrote your report? Or submitted your report, I should say. Or your discussion paper. Davie Fulton: I thought probably the discussion paper would say when I started, but it doesn't. My recollection is that it was late '84 or early '85 when the Minister first commissioned me to do this. Michael Asch: Then you spent at least a year talking to the parties, so this occasioned a number of discussions? Davie Fulton: Yes. Michael Asch: I'm just wondering because we are hoping that we will have the opportunity to speak to provincial and federal representatives. I'm not sure whether this will happen. But at the time, from some of your answers, I'm just wondering if you would feel it fair -- if you had occasion to hear answers to these two questions I'm going to ask you -- if it would be fair for you to report. Two issues that trouble me -- and I would like to ask the appropriate representatives -- is the theory that you mentioned and that you have in your report, that Native title was extinguished by the signing of the treaty notwithstanding that the Lubicon didn't sign it. Did you have any occasion to discuss the legal or philosophical basis upon which the federal government came to this conclusion? Davie Fulton: No, I don't recall that I did. But I believe there is some law in support of the idea that -- some precedent, if you like, cases -- that support the idea that Native sovereignty can be extinguished, or title can be extinguished, not only by treaty, by agreement, but by the defacto exercise of sovereignty. And the federal position, as I appreciate it, is that although the treaty was only made with certain Bands in the area, not all of them, the federal government exercised de facto sovereignty over the whole area. After the transfer to Alberta, the provincial government exercised de facto sovereignty without question. That was the case initially, certainly. And it's by that fact that Native title was extinguished: that seems to be the federal position. Michael Asch: Fair enough. I would like to hear from them, of course, but I just wondered if you had had an occasion. The other thing is about retroactive legislation... Davie Fulton: May I just interrupt? I'd like to say that having said that, to go back to the position I outlined to you earlier that I don't think that can be a basis for settlement. I think the equitable principles that I've discussed should be looked at first. Michael Asch: Yes, I understand that and appreciate that. I see that as an avenue to resolve the problem. These are things that I'm hoping just to ask you because if we don't have a chance to talk to them, I thought you might have some information that would be helpful to us. The other question is on the retroactive legislation. Clearly it had a very important practical impact on the case that the Lubicons and the Isolated Communities had developed in the court system. Was there anything that you had discussed in the basis upon which the Provincial government had decided that this was a reasonable course of action? Davie Fulton: No. I didn't see any point in raising something there where I felt that the outcome would show an indication of my horror, if you like, my disapproval of what was done and therefore sour the atmosphere. So I didn't raise the matter. Michael Asch: They didn't volunteer any information? Davie Fulton: No. Michael Asch: Thank you. Sandy Day: As I see it, it seems to me that before negotiations can go anywhere there has be re-established an element of trust on all sides. It seems like that is something that is not there, has not been there. I'd like to ask your advice or your opinion as to how to re-establish a sense of trust with the parties. Davie Fulton: That's a difficult question, isn't it? I don't think that can be done unless you have discussions with the parties. I understand you had some difficulty in approaching or in getting a meeting with federal officials. I don't know what's the situation with Alberta. I can only urge you to take every effort to try and bring about a meeting between appropriate federal officials and Ministers or other levels of both governments and endeavour to have the kind of discussion that you want and see if you can re-establish a basis of confidence and mutual readiness to negotiate. Perhaps the examination, as I say, a detailed examination of the position of the federal government on the one hand and the Lubicon on the other, and then you can go to them and say, "Look, we want to discuss this with you. Won't you come to a meeting?" And see if you can work out something. I would think they would find it very difficult to avoid such an invitation. And if you made it then you would perhaps establish some avenues of reconciliation. Otherwise I don't see how you can establish the desired atmosphere. Jacques Johnson: Mr. Fulton, I would like to thank you for this morning's hearing that I would like to bring to an end. It's five to twelve. We will resume this afternoon at 1:30. I would like to take this opportunity, however, to welcome the Lubicon people who have come in at the end of this last hour or so and their Chief, Bernard Ominayak. I would be so bold as to suggest that perhaps after we have completed the testimony of Mr. Fulton, we may ask Mr. Ominayak if you would like to maybe come forward to answer a question or two that we may have, particularly in regards to the progress of negotiations if he is able to share with us any of that progress. We'll see you at 1:30. Thank you. Jacques Johnson: I would like to thank Mr. Fulton again for the very important input that he presented us with this morning. We have two more questions maybe to begin and perhaps to ask if when you visited with the Lubicon people that first time, can you tell us what you saw? Can you tell us what you found there? What sort of people? In what sort of condition were they? That was in 1985. The development in their traditional area had begun around 1979 so there had been about 6 years of very rapid and intense oil development, in particular. I wonder if you have anything to tell us about this, about the people themselves, as you saw them? Davie Fulton: My impression was of a people who were definitely the victims of poverty, hardship, who found it difficult to contemplate anything that they could do in the present circumstances to improve their position and who felt that their future and welfare depended on settlement of their claim. That was the only thing that held out any hope for a future for them. In discussions with them and from what observations I was able to make it did become perfectly clear to me and certainly was my impression and still is, that up until recent years they had been almost entirely dependent upon the traditional Indian way of life -- hunting and trapping, living in harmony with nature and finding the presence of wildlife in various forms which was the main if not the sole source of their livelihood. However, one of the things that impressed me, not only from the formal statements that were made but from my discussions and observations was that they did not insist that forever they must follow that old way of life. They indicated that they were prepared to make adjustments and to live with development provided development would allow them to live. In other words, they could not make the transition to an entirely new way of life overnight. There was a realization that generations to come, if they have adequate support and livelihood -- in other words, if they could live -- they might well be ready to live with the new way of life in conjunction with development and derive their livelihood from that development and other sources of income from what we might call the modern, white way of living. But their position was that they did not want to be bulldozed into a new way, they wanted to be able to make the transformation of their own accord, their own free will, and decently and with dignity. That impressed me very much, the fact that they were not insisting upon the maintenance of their historic traditional way of life forever. They were prepared to make adjustments. And to do so cooperatively. This approach I found realistic and encouraging. The other thing that impressed me -- and I must confess that I had a certain reluctance to believe this -- was the history of abuse, of misunderstanding -- not misunderstanding so much as unrealized hopes. The belief that they were dealing with honorable people in negotiations and that the things that were said were meant. Then they would find that they were not meant or were not realized and that had a tremendously discouraging and disillusioning effect on them. So I found that there were reservations on their willingness to make to governments full disclosure. I wanted, for instance, to ask them and encourage them to meet with Alberta, in particular, and then go into a full discussion with full disclosure of all the facts and records with regard to Band membership. I found them extremely reluctant, indeed unwilling, to do that because of their suspicion of what would be done with certain information that they might reveal in that process and how it would be used to undermine and weaken their claim instead of being used for the purpose of arriving at an overall solution. That suspicion, that attitude, I found at first, let's say, difficult to believe and accept. I came -- as I learned more and more about the history of past so-called negotiations and dealings by government with the land question -- I found that there was cause for their suspicion. So I became extremely concerned about the possibility of making progress, and some of this is expressed in my discussion paper. In summary, I found people who were desperately in need of a sincere, honest and simple approach to and response to their problems, and a process of honest and open negotiations with a sincere desire to make a settlement. That's what I tried to work towards in my meetings and in my discussion paper.