WPC 2BPV`Courier 10cpi|x?xxx,kx6X@ɓ8;X@   Ő3' 3' 3' 3'     4 <D     " 4 <D` hp x (#%'0*,.#:x2PkCXP# #:2PkCP#A Comparison of Approaches #:2PkCP# #:x2PkCXP#The offers made by the federal government and the Lubicon,although modified at various times, always show two verycontrasting underlying approaches. The federal proposal(s)generally favours an approach that compares the Lubicon situationto the settlement of other claims by First Nations. They seemto be looking at whether or not the Lubicon settlement is fairwith respect to their own policy and with the circumstances ofothers presumed to be in similar circumstances. The Lubicon,generally, are in favour of a resolution that is relatedspecifically to their circumstances that is, based on theirneeds. The Needs Approach: Do the proposals meet the needs test? This discussion islimited to one area economic selfsufficiency. This questionis posed in the Terms of Reference: Does the settlement providethe Lubicon with the resources to once again become economicallyselfsufficient? We begin by looking at the federal offer from the perspective of needs. As there were no government witnesses, it is impossibleto know whether or not government believed that their offersprovided the means for economic selfsufficiency. Clearly, theLubicon said the proposals do not. The testimony heard indicatesthat the Lubicon are correct. As it emerged from testimony, the Lubicon believe that theirfuture economic selfsufficiency must be based on changing froma reliance on hunting and trapping to agriculture. The rationalefor this approach appears to be that, as the wildlife had beendisturbed and to a large extent destroyed, it is reasonable todevelop an agricultural base. Their proposal to the federalgovernment was based on this assumption. Although there may beother alternatives, finding them falls outside the mandate ofthis Commission. A key section of the Lubicon position is the costing of theirneeds to develop agriculture. At the same time, they also costedneeds for community construction, trapper support and commercialdevelopment. These funds, along with some dollars forcompensation related to the extraction of nonrenewable resourcesfrom their lands, represented the basis for the global dollaramount they presented in their offer. This amount in the Lubiconoffer, according to Koliger and Schmidt (architects andengineers) was around $27 million (in 1988 dollars and withoutcontingency provisions). The federal offer(s) also include dollars for communitydevelopment, for an economic development fund (schedule D 1989),some support for agricultural development and the opportunity to apply for additional funds. It really does not provide for thedegree of agricultural or commercial infrastructure found in theLubicon proposal. As well, in all cases, the dollars provided inthe federal government proposals are lower than those indicatedin the Lubicon proposal. Given that the federal government offer does notspeak either directly or indirectly to the question of economicselfsufficiency, and does not ensure funding for infrastructureto enable selfsufficiency to take place, it is evident that thefederal plan does not meet the needs of the Lubicon to shifttheir economy to agriculture. At the same time, it is fair to ask whether the Lubicon figuresrepresent a reasonable estimate of the costs. Evidence wasprovided by Koliger and Schmidt that the global dollar amountprovided by the Lubicon was significantly lower (in 1992 dollars)than what would be required to construct the infrastructureidentified in their proposal. This was about $42 million (withoutcontingency). Thus, the Lubicon proposal is perhaps unrealisticto achieve their objectives, because their figures are too low. The Fairness Approach Are the government proposals fair? It appears that governmentsutilized this approach in preparing their offers. Some witnessessuggested that fairness ought to be a crucial criterion uponwhich to evaluate the proposals. Fairness may be measured invarious ways. It is our view, based on information extraneous tothese hearings, that government sees fairness as an aspect ofconsistency with respect to existing policies, and evenhandedness with respect to treatment. It appeared thatfor some witnesses, fairness related to evenhandedness withrespect to treatment of others, both Aboriginal andnonAboriginal. It is far beyond the scope of this document to present adiscussion of current government policy or implementation of itrespecting treaty rights, land claims (both specific andgeneral) and services. Generally speaking, however,the proposalsadvanced by the federal government fit within one or anotherpolicy. One question, which we will not address in detail, iswhether the way they are combined in any given proposalrepresents the fairest way to proceed. In at least one case, itdoes not. In one proposal, the government merely provides the opportunityto seek funds from existing programs. The Lubicon could do thiswithout it being in the proposal. It is inappropriate to havesuch a provision contained within it or to count it as a part ofthe settlement package. Clearly, such an approach is onlyconsistent with policies that stand outside of the normal landclaims approach. Even more crucial, is whether the governments idea of fairnessas it relates to consistency and evenhandedness, is in fact fair to the Lubicon. It seems not. When policies are to be consistent and evenhanded with respect to certain abstractgeneralizations about the parties with whom one is negotiating,it seems that the whole point of the exercise is lost. One mustask specifically about the circumstances of each individual caseand provide appropriate redress according to that context. How then, shouldthe concept of fairness be applied to the Lubicon and the otherisolated communities? We offer examples regarding relations withthe federal and provincial governments as illustrations of what acontextualized use of fairness might imply. We begin with thefederal. It is reasonably well known that the Lubicon were missed whenTreaty 8 was signed in 1899. It is also accepted fact that theLubicon petitioned Indian Affairs for a reserve beginning in 1933and that, in 1939, Indian Affairs agreed they were a separateBand and that a reserve should be established for them. Thisreserve was to be approximately 25.4 square miles in area. It isknown that no survey was done then and that the Albertagovernment removed any reserve on this land in 1954 when thefederal government did not comply with requests for survey datato remove the land from the provincial inventory. It thereforeseems appropriate to conclude that it was through no fault oftheir own, that the Lubicon and other isolated communities didnot have a reserve by the time oil and gas were discovered ontheir traditional lands. It is estimated (through an extrapolation of government supplieddata) that $1 million per day was extracted in energy fromtraditional Lubicon lands in the year 1988 alone. Had the federalgovernment acted in a timely and appropriate manner in the 1940sand 1950s, there would have been a reserve in place by the timeof this discovery. It is agreed that some, if not all, of thenonrenewable energy supplies extracted would have been from thatreserve and perhaps from lands set aside for other isolatedcommunities. Given these circumstances, it seems logical that a fairapproach would necessitate that the settlement reflect thesituation that ought to have existed when oil and gas werediscovered and extracted from Lubicon lands. It is clear that,given existing federal policy respecting royalties toresourcerich Bands, monetary settlement based on this view of fairness would far exceed the Lubicon proposal which is basedon need. We turn now to the question of fairness with respect to actionsof the government of Alberta. In 1975, the people of the isolatedcommunities (including the Lubicon) filed a caveat that servednotice that, notwithstanding the existing language of Treaty 8,they still have certain unextinguished Aboriginal Rights in theirtraditional territories. The filing of such a caveat wasimportant in that it would provide certain protection againsttheir rights being alienated through third party interest. The Alberta case was based on a similar case in the NorthwestTerritories which was filed by the Dene in the late 1960s. Thetrial in the Northwest Territories produced a judgment thatasserted that the Dene may well have unextinguished rights, notwithstanding the language of the same treaty. Itallowed for the filing of a caveat. At the time the Lubicon casereached the courts in Alberta, the NWT case was in the AppealsCourt of Alberta (which acted at that time as the Appeals Courtfor the NWT). During the Lubicon trial, the Appeals Court statedthat, given the way the law was written in the NWT, it was notpossible to file such a caveat, but that given the landlegislation in Alberta, were the case to be filed here, theywould have to uphold it. As a consequence, the lawyers for Alberta asked for a stay in that trial. The government of Albertaintroduced legislation that changed the land titles act inAlberta in such a way that no caveat could be upheld here. What is crucial is that the government made this legislation retroactive, and as a result, the trial was rendered null andvoid. Thus, an important legal tool, the caveat, was taken fromthe Lubicon and other isolated communities. The passage of retroactive legislation is generally repugnant toEnglish legal thought. It is especially repugnant when aconsequence of this action is to deny access to legal remedy.This was done in the Lubicon case. It would thus follow that apolicy based on fairness would operate within a context thatassumed the existing case of the Lubicon is exempt from theimpact of the legislation. Such a conclusion would have anextremely important impact on the balance of power between theparties even now and its application retroactively (which wouldbe fair) would create a sufficient legal tangle so thatgovernments probably would be quite willing to resolve themonetary questions on the Lubicons premise, based on need. In sum, when the context of the Lubicon is included within thescope of fairness, that concept would likely lead to a higher[monetary] settlement than the one based on need. We aretherefore drawn to conclude that, whether based on fairness oron need, the Lubicon position represents the more appropriatesettlement proposal than do any we have seen advanced by thefederal government The Commissioners #:2PkCP#The People Speak #:x2PkCXP# #:d2PkCP#Following are excerpts from a variety of oral presentations heardby Commissioners: #:x2PkCXP# We live our lives in constant danger. Since the blockade we havebeen afraid to go certain places in town [Peace River]. Our sonshave been beaten by white men when they say they are Lubicon. The roads are dusty and dangerous to travel. The logging and oiltrucks run us off sometimes. We have lost many young ones becauseof the horrible roads. The Lubicon women demand an end to the physical, emotional,economic, cultural and spiritual destruction. Hear our voice andour message we dont know if well be here tomorrow. Violet Ominayak witness Little BuffaloAugust 06/92 Most people who are knowledgeable in the area of Human Rights inthe UN know about the Lubicon case.... if you look at all theother atrocities in the world, the Lubicon case stands out as abig beacon. Its not a very pleasant thing that has happened...And they know its an ongoing situation. Thats the mostsignificant thing. Its ongoing. Its not something that hasstopped. I think that what has happened is that its brought the attentionof the world to the fact that whats going on in Canada is notvery pretty, their relationship to indigenous people. And theLubicon have done that. ... [At the UN] you have to be superpolite, super diplomatic ... what happened was the Committee [for Human Rights] came out witha ... decision condemning Canada in the strongest possiblelanguage that they could, within the parameters that they workin. The other thing that the Committee did, which is anotherunprecedented thing in relation to the Lubicons in thisparticular instance, is that they wanted to maintain an ongoinghandson in the Lubicon case. Usually what happens is they makea decision, issue it and then its finished. Theres no usualfollowup because there are so many cases. But in this case theyappointed a special rapporteur whos to report to the Committee in an ongoing basis as to the situation of the Lubicons. To me, it signals within the the United Nations and other peopleIve talked to, that the Committee knows that Canada was notplaying fair with them and they wanted to say something about theLubicon case ... OK, Canada, you say that youre making fair andequitable efforts to settle this issue ... Well give you thebenefit of the doubt publicly, but were also appointing arapporteur. And thats the killer because the rapporteur istotally independent of Canada. Hes from Hungary. Theres no waythat the Canadian government can influence the guy ... so infact, what the UN has done is kick the whole Lubicon thing up onemore step ... its unprecedented for the UN to do that. Sharon Venne witness Edmonton January29/93 So people say to me, Whats it like? I say, What wouldEdmonton look like 10 years after everybody had been forced ontowelfare and had to stand in line with their hand out in order tosurvive? What would that do to relationships between men andwomen and parents and children and the old people? During one 18 month period there were something like 21pregnancies; 18 children were stillborn... There is not one single Lubicon here who has not experiencedunnatural death in his own family through alcoholrelatedincidents a man freezing to death on his trapline, a mankilling himself with his hunting rifle [the first known suicidein Lubicon history], stillborn children, kids running headoninto an oil company truck. .. They didnt even know which bones went with which child....This has been rightly described by the World Council of Churchesas genocide. ... thats the consequence on this society of whats been done tothem while the Alberta government and the oil companies anddominant Canadian society all of the rest of us havebenefited to the tune of an estimated $8 billion in oil revenues. Now theyre proposing to go in and chop down something like 11000 trees a day, dehydrate them and send them to Japan as part ofsupposed diversification of the Alberta economy. Fred Lennarson witness Edmonton June 01/92 I dont think theres any amount of dollars that would be able toput back in place what we lost by way of our traditional way oflife. Rather, weve concentrated on trying to put somethingtogether that would enable us to build some kind of a future forour people, especially for our younger generation. Early on ... a lot of our trappers were out there ...The guys whowere in the oil fields would have their cat and go out of theirway to destroy traps. A few of the people had tried to getcompensation for some of the damage that was done to thetraplines... but the whole issue is not the $5.00 trap oranything. We were losing a way of life ....we were trying to hangon and hang on and hang on ... That wasnt possible because theykept coming. There was no response even to the complaints...Onone hand while the trappers were out there and we were trying tokeep them from shooting the guy running the cat, these were allthings we were dealing with very early on, and at the same timeto try and keep our people from going to jail, because we kepttelling them if you kill this guy theyll just put more in. Itsnot these guys... Weve fought a battle and I dont think we wereexpected to be here today, or even this year. But we hope thatwere going to be able to withstand what may come in the futureas long as we dont have a settlement. With the billions of dollars that have been extracted by way ofnatural resources off our traditional territory, there has not been a red cent that has been coming back to the community otherthan welfare from the federal government. There have been a lot of claims by the governments that theycant be handing out tax dollars to Native people like theLubicons all the time. I dont think were talking about any taxpayers dollars when were talking about a settlement ...considering the amount of money thats been extracted through thevarious oil development and also the logging companies up to thispoint. During the blockade when we blocked those roads and stopped theoil development from coming in [October, 1988] they were allcrying that their kids were going hungry and that we were takingbread and butter off their tables. They never once considered the fact that they were takingeverything away from us. Along the road you dont see any of the clearcut logging, but theminute you get behind the scenes theres a hell of a mess back inthere. That holds true in a lot of these things. I think thatsthe same problem we faced with the oil development. It seems like the bigger the oil company, the less regulations there are, ifthere were ever any in the first place. Supposedly there are, buttheyre not followed. There are a lot of things for example,around those pump jacks, around those battery stations wheretheres a lot of oil spilled and it gets into the water stream.The ducks get it in their feathers and then they cant fly. Allthe drilling mud and stuff, the toxins that are being used in thedrilling, the bears, the coyotes get into that and their furstarts falling off and it gets into their system and eats out their insides. So allthese things have to be looked at any time any kind ofdevelopment is going to take place in order to try and preserve. There must be a reason why the Creator put us in the area thatwere in. So I guess from that perspective the onus is on us totry and protect the Earth, the environment and the wildlife asmuch as possible. Chief Bernard Ominayak witness Edmonton June 01 &02/92 Long time ago, when people first arrived at Lubicon, everythingwas in harmony. There were lots of forests, lots of animals, lotsof resources for them. It went on that way for a long time. Buteventually they started to see a lot of their traplines andforests disappear, mostly because of development coming into theregion. These developers had absolutely no regard for theirexistence. [We] should be compensated for all that [weve] lost in generaldamages, because the resources of the land that had been passedon have been stripped and [we] have nothing to pass on to [our]children and grandchildren for future livelihood. Elder Edward Laboucan(translated fromCree) witness Edmonton June 02/92 I started to imagine what it would be like for myself. I think ofmyself as a totally urban person; Edmontons the smallest placeIve lived. And if I was taken from my job and ...everything thatI know .. taken out of all my socialization, all my contacts,everything that gives meaning to my life, the whole bit, and justdropped in the middle of Little Buffalo..and I had to survive...I dont think Id last. Its that kind of total change of environment and context that we are witnessing. By some peoplesdefinition it would be genocide. And its a very slow process.Were not lining them up by the trees and executing them. Werejust slowly doing it ...drip by drip by drop.... Personally, I think the churches feel that the delay in settlingthis has been a total disgrace, not just on behalf of the governments, but on behalf ofall of us, for somehow not having the political will to settle. The [Lubicon proposal] seems to make sense to me. I guess what Idont understand is why we have not seen a valid governmentresponse to it. .....the public has a right to know thesespecifics. What is specifically wrong with the Lubicon proposals?What specifically happened with Fultons Report and why was itnot accepted? What were the problems with it? I know one of the things the government says is theyre concernedabout a precedent and paying the Lubicon people more than the going rate. Well, first of all, I dont think in my limitedunderstanding of how the land claims process is going throughoutCanada, I dont think there is such a thing as a going rate. Now, I can understand where the government is saying they do haverelationships to each [land claim].... but that shouldnt be thathard to do... It doesnt take 7 years or whatever it is to sitdown and look at the agreements publicly, and say all right,these folks got these under these circumstances with theseproposals and why. I mean, you put a wall chart there and youstart looking at it and you start making your comparisons and youtry to be just and fair. It doesnt take a genius to do it. Whyhasnt it been done? As I calculate it, $170 million is 2.3 per cent of $6 billion.Now, in investment terms, [the Lubicon] are therefore asking verylittle. Who accepts 2.3 per cent return on their money? Nobody.And thats strictly financially forget about human lives andall the things that are far more important than money. [Themoney] is peanuts compared to what the resource companies haveachieved and what we as taxpayers have achieved. I would like to know why [government representatives] have notappeared before this Commission. The public is entitled to know,in detail, why they are not here. It seems to me that theirappearance would confirm their good faith. Rev Bill Phipps United Church of Canada witness Edmonton June 29/92 Im living in Switzerland. I represent one of the biggest supportgroups for Native people in the Americas. I have a resolution on the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation. Representatives from 13 Europeancountries including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden,Switzerland and the United Kingdom do hereby resolve: 1. to continue pressing in every imaginable way thegovernments of Canada and Alberta to negotiate with the Lubiconpeople a fair and just settlement of Lubicon land rights; 2. to continue pressing European governments and nationaland international political organizations to keep raising theissue of outstanding Lubicon land rights with Canadianpoliticians and representatives of the Canadian government, such European political organizations toinclude the United Nations, the European Parliament, theConference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), Europeanpolitical parties, Aboriginal Rights organizations, Human Rightsorganizations and environmental organizations; 3. to accelerate the international STOP DAISHOWA campaignuntil there is a settlement of Lubicon land rights and anagreement negotiated between the Lubicons and Daishowa respectingLubicon wildlife and environmental concerns; 4. to establish a Lubicon Monitoring Committee of concernedEuropean organizations to enable a speedy and effective responseto any changes in the evolving Lubicon situation, including thepossibility of another effort by Daishowa this fall to clearcutLubicon trees. Dated the 25th of July, 1992, in Genoa, the town that ChristopherColumbus originated from. I would like to add two sentences to the Lubicon people. You arenot alone. There are European people who are with you in yourstruggle for a fair and just settlement of your concerns. Dr. Heinz Lippuner witness Little Buffalo August06/92 Overall, we hope that the land claim will be settled before wegraduate from high school (my brother Timothy is in grade 10 andIm in grade 9), so that our future will seem brighter soon. Sothat there will be something to keep us here. Even if we decideto go to university, we want there to be something to come backto, some place with jobs and a sense of community. There arethings we dont have, or are losing now. In the last few years, since we were young, we have seen moretroubles here. More alcohol and with it, fights and accidents.People dont get along any more as well as they used to. Peoplefrom outside come and sell booze and it breaks up families andcauses violence. This is our land, and none of this should have been going on inthe first place. .... we would like to settle down and stay inthis community, but what will remain? Crystal Gladue, 14 witness Little Buffalo August06/92 I held the necessary meetings and prepared a discussion paperwhich I think you have.... which was supposed to serve as thebasis for that final meeting with the representatives of theparties. To my amazement and disappointment, although thediscussions had proceeded amicably and constructively, theAlberta minister, Mr. Pahl, took the position that he wasntgoing to go any further with these inquiries, that it was a wasteof time, that I had no authority in the matter, and that Albertawas not going to take any further part. After discussion with theband and with Mr. Crombie, it was agreed that if Alberta wouldnot take any part Alberta being so vitally affected and aconcerned party there was really not any point in continuingmy inquiry. That was where the matter was ended then. The band asked if I would be prepared to serve in some capacityin the mediation process and I said yes, I would. Then, I gather,it was put before the federal government, about the possibilityof my being chairman of a mediation panel. Mr. McKnightsposition was, Never, Mr. Fulton is prejudiced. He used the wordpublicly. He made that statement publicly, that I was prejudicedin favour of the band. He said, We couldnt possibly have him asa mediator. To which my answer was, and I put it in a letter toMr. McKnight, You apparently dont understand the proper senseand meaning of the word prejudice, because prejudice is aposition you take based upon a lack of the knowledge of the factsor deliberate disregard for the facts and you come to aconclusion notwithstanding what the facts may be; whereassympathy on the other hand, is a conclusion you arrive at basedupon knowledge of the facts. And Id be guilty of sympathybecause I know the facts now. But I am not prejudiced. I neverhad an answer to that letter. But apparently the position then ofthe federal government became, What Fulton said in thediscussion paper was not very useful. E. Davie Fulton witness Edmonton November02/92 I went to Lubicon country a few weeks ago and came backcompletely appalled and overwhelmed at the conditions that theLubicon people are living in. ...in my work as pastor Ivebeen...talking with missionaries and hearing about conditions in Third World countries and never realized that the poverty anddespair and conditions would be so poor as they are in thiscountry one of the richest nations in the world. I came backwith a better understanding and more compassion and a sense ofurgency that this situation needs to be resolved. I personally am becoming more and more ... agitated and upsetthat we have a government that allows this kind of thing tohappen. I think that if the Lubicons lose, and if this continues, wellall lose as Canadians. What is frustrating for me is to see our tax dollars going tohigh salaries and perks for politicians, to American companies[and] being misused ... in many ways. But if it goes topromoting justice for the oppressed people, for poor people... in my opinion, taxpayers are willing to dig deep and pay forthat. John Stellingwerff Edmonton Interfaith Committeefor Aboriginal Rights witness Edmonton June 29/92 It has been an incredibly enriching experience for me to havebeen able to spend time in Little Buffalo, being taken around,spending time on the trapline, getting to know the people there.But of course its also been a very painful experience as well,watching the community change under the really severe oppressionthat theyve been subjected to since about 1982. There were lots of times where I couldnt believe the material myself. That was one ofthe big struggles. I think for about two years I struggled tobelieve this material myself. It just did not conform to my viewof the country. It kind of ripped me apart at some levels. Andlots of things I was afraid to say because I thought, surely Imwrong. And somebody is going to prove it wrong and [then] Illhave to dig up other evidence. But nothing. Theres no response.[I wrote] Globe and Mail articles on the plebiscite. I outlinedthe Woodland Cree case in Saturday Night Magazine and Tom Siddonwrote a very weak reply that had no substance at all. That was afurther shock, that theres just no defence on the part of thefederal authorities for what theyve done here. I dont see muchsign that theyre willing to rectify it. I found it helpful in my whole understanding of this case to goto the Penan jungle and watch those people being forced from theland. Some of the images come to mind as Im speaking. Peoplelolling about these longhouses, destitute, no future. Its just pathetic. It helped me to see that this sort of thing does go onin the world and it helped me to ask the question is there anyreason why it should not have happened in Canada? Are we anybetter people? This is a question that Canadians find really hardto face. We like to think of ourselves as good, upstanding andfair people, sympathetic to Native issues and Native Rights andso forth. On one level every Canadian knows that Indian people of thiscountry are getting screwed. Everybody knows that. And thattheyre marginalized, they live in terrible conditions, and thatall the programs that this new federal offer is trying to imposeon the Lubicon people have failed everybody ... And yet onanother level, we have to maintain this belief in ourselves thatwe are good, that we are better than other North Americans ... John Goddard, author of Last Stand of the LubiconCree witness Edmonton November03/92 Our people are prepared to support [the Lubicon] in any waypossible, in any way that they ask. So far they have asked formoral and spiritual support which we have tried very hard toprovide ... right now these people are hanging on with theirheart and soul. Thats about all they have to work with. There isnothing. There are no services. All there are is goodheartedpeople to come out here and hold their hand and get through onemore day of whats put on them. Ive sat with people who havelost a great deal and listened to their stories and they are sotragic that I probably wouldnt be able to tell you even one ofthem. I can tell you that every person here has been touched bytragedy again and again. They dont even have time to recoverfrom the last one when another happens. Its all because of greed. Therere billions of dollars; this land has more than enough to provide for whattheyre asking. Its absurd that theyre forced to live throughwhat they are. As a Native person, a Native woman, I for one willstand by them in any decision that they make, and I will try tohelp them because I believe its a Human Rights struggle. From myperspective it has to be one of the worst cases of Human Rightsabuse that Ive ever witnessed or Ive ever documented. What Iwant to highlight is the human cost. They have a lot more things to do here than to run around thecountry and tell the story of their tragedy. Thats not theeasiest thing to do... They should be able to have some kind ofresources to start building their future rather than social services to put a bandaid on a very big wound. I think it reallyis up to people like you to make that difference because I thinkas Aboriginal people we have done just about everything withinour means to get these people some help, to get them recognitionworldwide, and its gotten nowhere. Its up to Canadians andits up to the Canadian government and its up to yourCommission to see how quickly they can get a fair settlement, nota settlement that will leave them on welfare and leave themabsolutely no economy, but a settlement that is fair. Dawn Hill Mohawk Nation witness Little Buffalo August06/92 The settlement that should be signed with the Lubicon band mustbe fair, but it must be fair to all people. It must be fair tothe many other Native bands who have signed agreements. It mustbe fair to those who are paying the settlement in land and money.It must be fair to the Lubicon band. The town of Peace River council urges the parties in negotiationto resume talks immediately and to come to a fair and justsettlement. In the meantime, it is manifestly unfair to involve Daishowa orany other group that is not a party to the negotiations inlobbying for a settlement. In discussions we hear about Nativeland claim settlements, the word fair is very often used. Wemust remember that fair has to apply to both sides. Mayor Michael Proctor witness Peace River August07/92 #x\  PCXP#