THE LUBICON OF NORTHERN ALBERTA

The Confrontation 

On October 15, 1988, after decades of fruitless efforts to achieve
recognition of their unextinguished aboriginal land rights, the Cree
people of Lubicon Lake established blockades on roads leading into
their traditional territory.  A couple of weeks earlier they'd
declared their intention to enforce their jurisdiction over their
traditional territory, including control of access and regulation of
development activity.

Nine days before establishment of the blockades the Lubicon people
had formally withdrawn from all legal proceedings before the
Canadian courts, making clear that they never accepted the
jurisdiction of the Canadian courts over their traditional territory
in any case, and, after 14 years of experience with the Canadian
courts, that they'd lost all confidence in the ability or
inclination of the Canadian courts to compel Canadian Government to
obey its own laws. 

After five days of blockade scores of heavily armed RCMP backed by
helicopters and attack dogs forcibly dismantled Lubicon barricades
and arrested 27 people.  Two days later, with people from across the
country pouring into the Lubicon area to support Lubicon assertion
of jurisdiction, Lubicon Chief Bernard Ominayak met with Alberta
Provincial Premier Don Getty and agreed on establishment of a 246
square kilometre reserve, conditional upon Federal Government
concurrence. 

Following the meeting with Premier Getty the Lubicons turned their
attention to Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who was at the
time in the midst of a re-election campaign.  Faced with the
prospect of significant Lubicon demonstrations along the campaign
trail during his re-election campaign, on November 3, 1988, Mr.
Mulroney met with Chief Ominayak and agreed to negotiations. 

Negotiations with the Federal Government commenced on November 29,
1988, and collapsed on January 24, 1989 -- after Mr. Mulroney's
successful election campaign.  Negotiations collapsed when the
Federal Government tabled a final "take-it-or-leave-it" settlement
offer which Federal negotiators knew in advance would be rejected,
since it contained no provision for the Lubicon people to once again
become economically self-sufficient. 

Immediately upon collapse of negotiations the Mulroney Government
launched a major propaganda campaign designed to subvert Lubicon
leadership and discredit the Lubicon cause.  The propaganda campaign
was coordinated with on-the-ground efforts to politically overthrow
the duly elected leadership of the Lubicon people.  At the time of
this writing the Lubicon people are continuing their struggle to
survive with dignity. 




HISTORICAL OVERVIEW                  June, 1989

There's a widespread myth in Canada and around the world, fostered
by successive Canadian Governments, that Canada is a place where
aboriginal rights and human rights generally are respected.  This
myth is maintained partly because many Canadians truly believe that
it's the case -- despite abundant evidence to the contrary -- and
partly because it serves Canada's interests internationally to have
people believe it.  The truth is quite different, as the Lubicon
experience makes clear.

The Lubicon people withdrew from all Canadian court proceedings in
October of 1988 after 14 painful years of trying to get the Canadian
courts to compel the Canadian Government to obey its own laws.
During those 14 years our unceded traditional lands were invaded by
dozens of Government directed oil companies, our traditional economy
and way of life was systematically destroyed by massive exploitation
of our natural resources, our people increasingly suffered what the
World Council of Churches accurately described as the "genocidal
consequences" of illegal Government and oil company actions, and we
experienced the growing frustration of trying to plead our legal
case before Government appointed judges who were the ex-head lawyers
for involved oil companies, judges who were the ex-partners of
senior oil company lawyers on the case, and judges who, upon
retirement, were appointed to the governing boards of involved oil
companies.

Unable to achieve any kind of effective redress within Canadian
legal and political institutions, we took our case to the United
Nations Committee on Human Rights, which, after three years of
considering the evidence agreed that we couldn't achieve effective
legal or political redress within Canada, and therefore instructed
Canada to do no further irreparable damage to our traditional lands
and way of life pending a hearing of charges that Canada has
violated our rights under the International Protocol on Civil and
Political Rights.  The Government of Canada has ignored the UN
instruction to do no further irreparable damage to our traditional
society; oil company activity in our traditional area has continued
unabated; and, last year, the Provincial Government dramatically
escalated plans to exploit our natural resources by announcing that
they'd sold the trees from a huge area completely covering our
traditional territory to a huge new Japanese pulp mill.

In asserting jurisdiction over our traditional lands we were not, as
has been suggested by various Canadian politicians, "taking the law
into our own hands".  Rather we were merely enforcing jurisdiction
which we'd never ceded to anybody in any legally or historically
recognized way.  Moreover we started enforcing our legitimate
jurisdiction over our unceded traditional lands only after years of
trying unsuccessfully to resolve the jurisdictional dispute between
ourselves and Canada through negotiations.  Trying to resolve the
jurisdictional dispute between ourselves and Canada through
negotiations didn't work, because while we tried to talk the other
side was literally driving bulldozers through what we were trying to
talk about, systematically destroying everything we had and valued
as a people, and in the process, of course, effectively subverting
our unceded aboriginal land rights.  

The Alberta Provincial Government claims to have received the
ownership rights to our traditional area from the Canadian Federal
Government through the land transfer act of 1930, which transferred
vast tracts of unpatented Federal Crown land to Provincial
Government jurisdiction.  The Canadian Federal Government in turn
claims to have obtained the ownership rights to our traditional
lands through negotiation of treaty with its original aboriginal
owners in 1899.  However we're the original aboriginal owners of our
traditional area, and the Canadian Federal Government never
negotiated any treaty with us, never properly obtained the rights to
our traditional lands, and, therefore, has never been in a position
to transfer those rights to the Province of Alberta or anybody else.

We first started trying to negotiate a settlement of our aboriginal
land rights in the early 1930's, after hearing that victims of the
great depression were moving into the bush to try and live-off the
land.  Under such circumstances we decided that we'd better try to
negotiate a treaty with the Government of Canada protecting our
aboriginal land rights, as we understood other aboriginal people in
the surrounding area had done.  We therefore sent emissaries to the
surrounding aboriginal communities in an effort to initiate
negotiation of our aboriginal land rights with the Government of
Canada.  Representatives of the Canadian Government with whom we
managed to make contact responded to our initiatives by giving each
of our emissaries a 5 dollar annuity payment and putting their names
on the membership lists of the other aboriginal societies where our
people had gone to try and make contact.

It was not until 1939 that officials of the Indian Affairs
Department actually visited our traditional area and confirmed that
we are indeed a separate and distinct aboriginal people retaining
aboriginal land rights.  At that time Government representatives
were well aware that many of our people were scattered throughout
our large traditional area and weren't immediately available to be
registered as recognized members of our Nation.  Explicit provision
was therefore made to calculate the amount of our traditional lands
which we would be allowed to retain for reserve purposes based on
the number of our people actually meeting with Canadian Government
representatives at that time, and then to increase the membership
list, and thus the amount of land which we would be allowed to
retain for reserve purposes, as so-called "absentees" came in from
the bush and were added to our membership list. 

An initial amount of reserve land based on the number of our people
meeting with Canadian Government representatives in 1939 was
selected and approved by both levels of Canadian Government pending
formal survey.  However Federal officials said that it wasn't
possible to have our reserve surveyed right away, so Provincial
officials agreed to set the land aside until a proper survey could
be conducted. 

In 1942 an official of the Federal Department of Indian Affairs
named Malcolm McCrimmon unilaterally removed a number of Indians in
northern Alberta from the lists of recognized, registered Indians.
McCrimmon had decided that the only people entitled to registered as
Indians were those who'd signed Treaty in 1899 or "shortly
thereafter".  The cut-off date he used to determine who was and
wasn't entitled to be registered as an Indian was January 1, 1912.
Most of our people, of course, had no opportunity to be registered
before January 1, 1912.  Most of those who were registered hadn't
been registered until after January 1, 1912.  And more than half of
our people still weren't registered in 1942 and remain unregistered
to this day. 

Under these circumstances McCrimmon's registration criteria
decimated our recognized membership list.  Those who hadn't been
recognized were deemed by the Government to be no longer eligible.
Over half of those who'd been recognized were removed from the list
of recognized Indians. 

Mr. McCrimmon of course knew exactly what he was doing and the
effect it would have on our aboriginal land rights.  In a letter to
the Departmental Superintendent of Reserves and Trusts, arguing that
establishment of a reserve at Lubicon Lake should be held in
abeyance until the membership question raised by his removals was
resolved, he wrote: 

"If my recommendation is approved by the Minister, the
number of Indians remaining on the membership list at
Lubicon Lake would hardly warrant the establishment of a
reserve at this point".

McCrimmon's removals created considerable controversy in Northern
Alberta.  Responding to the resulting political pressures, the
Minister of Indian Affairs appointed a Judge named McKeen to review
the removals.  Judge McKeen's report to the Minister, dated June 30,
1943 reads as follows:

"...Your instructions to me...say that the facts are
relatively simple and will not require any argument of
those who are protesting against the removals...This may
be the opinion of the Department but it is not mine, after
reading the Indian Act and Treaty No. 8, then a book
`Treaty of Canada with the Indians' by Morris (who was at
the time Lt. Governor of Manitoba and one of the Treaty 8
Commissioners), the Domestic Relations Act of Alberta and
the Criminal Code...Mr. McCrimmon has...followed the
(McCrimmon authored) principles governing ineligibility...
signed by Deputy Minister Charles Campsell...however...
with all due respect...I cannot concur (with the removals)
when I study Treaty No. 8 and previous commitments made by
various Commissioners appointed by Canada and acting for
Canada".

Judge McKeen's report was received by the Minister, referred to
McCrimmon, rejected by McCrimmon and quietly shelved.  The
controversy thus continued until 1944 when a formal Judicial Inquiry
was ordered.  The Judge conducting the Inquiry, Judge McDonald,
arrived at basically the same conclusions as Judge McKeen,
recommending the reinstatement of nearly 90% of the cases he heard.

The recommendations of the McDonald Inquiry were referred to the
Department of Indian Affairs where they were referred to McCrimmon,
reviewed by McCrimmon and then largely ignored.  Of the 90 Lubicon
people removed, for example, Judge McDonald heard 49 appeals,
recommended the reinstatement of 43, and recommended that "special
consideration" be given the remaining 6.  McCrimmon agreed to the
reinstatement of only 18.

Later McCrimmon argued that those who didn't appeal accepted his
removals.  He was wrong.  Lubicon people at the time lived scattered
throughout a large, largely inaccessible area without roads, phones,
radios or newspapers.  They neither spoke English nor knew how to
read or write.  Many didn't know what was going on; others knew but
simply decided not to participate in something basically irrelevant
to their lives.  They lived in the bush, on their own, with little
outside contact and even less inclination to spend their time
debating with McCrimmon or anybody else whether or not the Canadian
Government considered them to be Indians. 

On April 17, 1952, the Director of the Technical Division of
Provincial Lands and Forests wrote the Department of Indian Affairs
as follows:

"Due to the fact that there are considerable inquiries   
regarding the minerals in the (Lubicon) area, and also the
fact that there is a request to establish a mission at
this point, we are naturally anxious to clear our records
of this provisional reserve (set aside in 1939) if the
land is not required by this Band of Indians".

Officials of the Federal Department of Indian Affairs had in the
meantime forgotten about us and were consequently caught off-guard
by this Provincial letter.  The then Departmental Supervisor of
Reserves and Trusts therefore wrote the Alberta Regional Supervisor
of Indian Affairs as follows:
"You will recall that in 1946 C.D. Brown surveyed six    
parcels of land...for purposes of Indian Reserves...On his
program for the same year was a survey at Lubicon Lake but
it is our understanding that he was not able to undertake
this survey during the field season and it was left over
until another year.  In so far as we can tell from our
records, this proposed reserve seems to have been
forgotten since then and our attention has (now) been
drawn to it...I shall be pleased if...you can advise
whether you consider there is (still) a need of a reserve
at this point, for if so, we will give consideration to
having it surveyed, possibly this year, and if not,
certainly the following year".

The Alberta Regional Supervisor consulted the local Indian Agent,
who reviewed the situation and recommended against proceeding with
establishment of a reserve at Lubicon Lake.  The local Indian Agent
said the Lubicon Lake site was too isolated and inaccessible.  He
said that a reserve at Lubicon Lake would be "inconvenient" to
administer.

The Alberta Regional Supervisor therefore instructed the local
Indian Agent to meet with us about the selection of a more
"administratively convenient" site, closer to the beaten path --
outside of our traditional area.  When the local Indian Agent was
unable to get us to agree to an alternative site outside of our
traditional area, the Alberta Regional Supervisor instructed him to
meet with us again.  The Alberta Regional Supervisor was not,
however, really interested in consulting us about site selection, as
his written instructions to the local Indian Agent made clear. 
Those instructions read:

"Regardless of the result of such a meeting, I certainly
recommend the procuring of land (at a more convenient
site)."

Regarding the question of our ownership of potentially valuable
mineral rights, the Alberta Regional Supervisor -- agent of a
Federal Government constitutionally responsible for insuring that
the interests of aboriginal people in Canada are protected, was
equally explicit.  He wrote:

"It is recommended that the twenty-four sections of land
set aside for a reserve at Lubicon Lake be exchanged for
(a more convenient site)...I interviewed the Deputy
Minister of (Provincial) Lands and Forests...and...he
stated that he did not have any objections to the transfer
though there was no assurance that the mineral rights
would be included with (the more convenient site)...If
this reserve (at Lubicon Lake) is retained, the Band would
have the mineral rights...I would recommend the exchange
even it the mineral rights cannot be guaranteed (at the
more convenient site)."

The local Indian Agent met with us again on June 4, 1953.  His
written description of that meeting is as follows:

"I explained to Band members present that it would be
impossible to administer a reserve at Lubicon Lake because
of the lack of transportation, but the members continued
to ask for the reserve which has been set aside for them
by the Province of Alberta."

On October 22, 1953, the Director of the Technical Division of
Provincial Lands and Forests wrote the Federal Government as
follows:

"It is some years since (the Lubicon Lake site was
provisionally reserved)...(and)...it would be appreciated
if you would confirm that the proposal to establish this
reservation has been abandoned.  If no reply is received
within 30 days, it would be assumed that the reservation
has been struck from the records."

Federal officials considered the letter from the Province to be an
ultimatum and deliberately decided not to respond, believing that
the Provincial Government would simply assert Provincial
jurisdiction over the land, making it unavailable for reserve
purposes.  The attitude of Federal officials was clearly spelled out
in a letter dated February 25, 1954, from the Alberta Regional
Supervisor of Indian Affairs to the local Indian Agent.  The letter
reads:

"As you are no doubt aware, the Deputy Minister (of
Provincial Lands and Forests) has from time to time asked
when our Department was likely to make a decision as the
whether to not to take up this reserve.  There were so
many inquiries from oil companies to explore the area that
it was becoming embarrassing to state that it could not be
entered. That situation existed when our Branch was
advised that unless the Department gave a definite answer
before the end of 1953 the Provincial authorities were
disposed to cancel the reservation and return it to Crown
lands which could be explored.

"This was discussed when I was in Ottawa last October.  I
was of the opinion that our Branch had taken no action and
that the block (of land) would automatically return to
Provincial Crown lands.  Apparently this is not the case. 

"In approaching the subject (of a more accessible site)
with the Indians, I think it would be well to keep in mind
that the mineral rights may be much more valuable than
anything else, and if the Indians were deprived of these
rights, they could make it very unpleasant for Branch
officials. If this block (of land at Lubicon Lake) was
given up, then it is very unlikely that mineral rights
would be made available with the surface rights of any
other reserve that might be picked up.  You are fully
familiar with the situation and the Indians and their
habits."

After several more unsuccessful attempts to talk us into a more
"administratively convenient" alternative site, attempts during
which the Indian Agent carefully avoided any mention of potentially
valuable mineral rights, Federal officials settled on a new
strategy.  Unable to talk us into a reserve location outside of our
traditional area but which suited their administrative convenience,
they decided to try and wipe us off the books as an officially
recognized Indian Nation.  They questioned the validity of our
separate existence as a people, which they'd explicitly investigated
and confirmed in 1939.  They tried to bribe our people into allowing
their names to be transferred to the membership lists of other
recognized aboriginal societies, promising them educational and
other benefits which they supposedly wouldn't have to leave our
traditional area to receive, but which Federal officials said
couldn't be provided unless our people allowed their names to be
transferred.  They sought, through deliberate deceit and deception
to trick our people into voluntarily relinquishing their aboriginal
rights by means of a process called enfranchisement, telling them,
falsely, that they could always be put back on the list of
officially recognized Indians if they didn't like the supposed
advantages of "living like a white man" -- like being legally able
to buy alcoholic beverages.  And they transferred the names of some
of our members to the lists of other recognized aboriginal societies
-- without even their knowledge or permission. 

On the question of enfranchisement the Alberta Regional Supervisor
wrote:

"It is quite possible that the seven families (who'd
expressed interest in enfranchisement) will make
application for enfranchisement in the near future...
should they do so I would recommend that enfranchisement
be granted...the remaining members of the Band could no
doubt be absorbed into some other Band."

On the question of transferring our members to the membership lists
of other recognized aboriginal societies, he wrote: 

"The Whitefish Lake Band have no objection to (the Lubicon
people) being transferred...and I am suggesting to (the
local Indian Agent) to contact those members (of the
Lubicon Lake Band) who are at present residing at
Whitefish Lake and Grouard and ascertain if they wish to
file applications for transfer.  If they all wish to
transfer it would reduce the (officially recognized)
Lubicon Lake Band membership to approximately thirty and
if the remainder cannot be persuaded to transfer, their
land requirements would be much less than the present
membership would be entitled to."

And regarding our recognition as a separate and distinct aboriginal
society, the Alberta Regional Supervisor sought the assistance of
the Departmental Superintendent of Reserves and Trusts.  At the
request of the Alberta Regional Supervisor, the Departmental
Superintendent of Reserves and Trusts instructed his staff as
follows:

"...consult the appropriate files and advise whether
action was taken by the Department to officially establish
(the Lubicon Lake Band) as a Band, for at this time any
such action appears rather short-sighted, and if this
group was never established as an official Band, it will
serve our purpose very well at the present time".

All of these various strategies to wipe us off the books as an
officially recognized Indian Nation ultimately failed, and in 1973
our existence as a separate and distinct aboriginal society was
re-affirmed by Order-in-Council.  However these strategies were not
totally without effect.  Some of our people have never been included
on the list of our members recognized as Indians by the Government;
others were removed and never reinstated.  Some of our people were
enfranchised through deceit and fraud; still others remain
erroneously on the membership lists of other Aboriginal Nations.  In
addition, of course, and this has obviously been the real name of
the game all along -- there's never been a negotiated settlement of
our unextinguished aboriginal land rights.

Until about ten years ago questions of land ownership, membership,
mineral rights and aboriginal rights were essentially academic to
us.  Our traditional territory was isolated and inaccessible.  We
had little contact with outsiders, including Government officials.
There were no roads into our area, no phones, no electric power, no
television, no newspapers, no radios.  We built log houses for
shelter and spoke Cree.  We hunted moose for food and trapped fur
bearing animals to trade for basic goods from outside like tea and
flour.  We used dog sleds and horse drawn wagons for transportation.
And we lived on our traditional lands pretty much as countless
generations of our people before us. 

In 1971 the Alberta Provincial Government started to build an
all-weather road into our traditional territory as part of a plan to
open up northern Alberta for resource exploitation.  Once again
faced with the prospect of an influx of outsiders into our
traditional area, and unsure how to proceed given our previously bad
and limited experience with Canadian Government, we contacted the
Indian Association of Alberta and asked for advise and assistance.
The Indian Association contacted the Federal Government on our
behalf about the possibility of initiating negotiations regarding
our unceded aboriginal land rights. 

Federal Government officials refused to even consider negotiations
regarding our unceded aboriginal land rights, taking the position
that we were "merely squatters on Provincial Crown land with no land
rights to negotiate, not even the rights to our own homes".  Indian
Association lawyers therefore advised us to file a caveat with the
Alberta Land Registration Office, at least putting everyone on
notice that title to our traditional lands was contested. 

Such a caveat has no force in law and can't make anybody do
anything.  It's rather only a procedural matter.  You fill out the
prescribed forms and notice is posted that title to the land is
contested.  However we hoped that such notice would be worrisome to
potential developers, increasing pressure to resolve the outstanding
ownership and jurisdictional issues prior to proceeding with planned
development activity.  Instead of worrying potential developers,
however, the end result of our caveat was an eye-opening lesson for
us in lack of Canadian Government respect for its own laws. 

The Provincial Government refused to accept and file our caveat as
Provincial law at the time prescribed.  We therefore took the
Provincial Government to court, asking the courts to order the
Provincial Government to obey Provincial law. 

Since we had no money for court action, and since the Federal
Government is constitutionally responsible for ensuring that
aboriginal rights in Canada are respected and enforced, we sought
Federal Government support and assistance in prosecuting our case
against the Provincial Government. 

At first we were given the impression that the Federal Government,
in its capacity as "trustee" of Indian interests in Canada, would
help us with our legal proceedings against the Provincial
Government.  Later we were amazed to learn that the Federal
Government -- constitutionally responsible for protection of our
rights -- would be entering the case on behalf of the Provincial
Government.  As Chief Billy Diamond of the James Bay Cree would
later observe, "the trustee is the enemy" of aboriginal people in
Canada.

Provincial Government lawyers asked the courts to postpone the
hearing of our caveat case pending the outcome of a similar case in
the Northwest Territories called the Paulette case.  The Paulette
case went against the Indians, but the decision read that the Court
would have held for the Indians, and ordered the Government to file
the Caveat, had the land registration law in the Territories been
written the same as Alberta and Saskatchewan. 

Following the Paulette decision the Province went back to court and
asked for another postponement of the hearing of the case, during
which time they re-wrote the relevant legislation, making the effect
of their re-written legislation retroactive to before the time we
tried to file our caveat.  Given the re-written, retroactive
Provincial legislation, the judge dismissed our case as no longer
having any basis in law.

The Provincial Government's new all-weather road into our area was
completed in 1978.  Shortly thereafter the Provincial Government and
dozens of multi-national oil companies invaded our traditional area
in force.  They made no effort to seek an equitable for fair or just
settlement of our unceded aboriginal land rights.  Instead they
deliberately sought to undermine our traditional hunting and
trapping economy, to subvert our unceded aboriginal land rights
under Canadian law, and to destroy our will and ability to resist
Provincial Government and oil company exploitation of our
traditional territory.

With long feared development activity proceeding all about us,
rapidly destroying our traditional lands and way of life, we
returned to court, this time asking the court to either affirm the
existence of our unceded aboriginal land rights, or, if the court
found that Lubicon land rights had been somehow extinguished, for
substantial financial compensation.  Since Indians and Indian lands
are a matter of exclusive Federal Government jurisdiction under the
Canadian Constitution, we filed this second legal action with the
Federal courts. 

We also approached the Federal Department of Indian Affairs again
about the possibility of financial assistance to support our second
legal action, and/or about the possibility of negotiations.  After
lengthy discussions the Federal Indian Affairs Minister agreed to
appoint a Federal Claims Commissioner to work with us on resolving
the jurisdictional dispute, and he also agreed in writing to provide
us with financial assistance required to support our work with the
Federal Claims Commissioner.  Neither the financial assistance nor
the Federal Claims Commissioner promised by the Minister at that
time were ever forthcoming.  Rather we were simply told later that
the Government wouldn't be honouring the written promises made by
its Minister, because, we were told, the Minister had "exceeded his
authority".

The Alberta Provincial Government and the oil companies responded to
our second legal action as they have consistently responded to all
of our efforts to seek legal redress through the Canadian court
system, with procedural arguments designed to preclude judicial
determination of the ownership question until we're no longer able
to fight for our rights -- in which case, of course, they win by
default.  This time they argued that we were before the wrong court
and should instead be suing in the Alberta Provincial Courts. 

We argued the question of the jurisdiction of the Federal court to
hear our case to the Federal Court of Appeal, which held that we
could sue the Federal Government and Federally-owned oil company
PetroCanada in the Federal Court, but that we had to sue the Alberta
Government and other offending oil companies in Provincial Court. 
We therefore commenced parallel legal actions, one against the
Federal Government and PetroCanada in Federal Court, and another
against the Provincial Government and other offending oil companies
in Provincial Court. 

Both of these parallel legal actions carried on until the fall of
1986, when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered our Federal court
action moot with a decision to the effect that you can't sue the
Federal Government in Federal court regarding aboriginal land rights
within Provincial borders, because, supposedly, aboriginal land
rights within Provincial borders involve Provincial land rights and
must therefore must be adjudicated before the Provincial courts. 

In light of the Supreme Court decision that you can't sue the
Federal Government in Federal court over aboriginal land rights 
within Provincial borders, we moved to add the Federal Government to
our Provincial court action.  Federal Government lawyers opposed
adding the Federal Government to the Provincial court action,
arguing that the Federal Government retained no interest in
traditional Lubicon land since the land was transferred to the
Province by virtue of the 1930 land transfer agreement.  This
Federal Government argument ignored both the fact that the land
transfer agreement specifically provides that the land was being
transferred from Federal to Provincial Government jurisdiction
"subject to...any interest other than that of the (Federal) Crown in
the same" -- namely the aboriginal interest -- and also that
responsibility for negotiating aboriginal land rights is a matter of
exclusive Federal Government jurisdiction under the Canadian
Constitution.

The Provincial court judge hearing the case agreed with Federal
Government lawyers that the Federal Government shouldn't be added to
our Provincial court action, with the result that, at the time we
asserted jurisdiction over our traditional territory, there was not
a single court in Canada prepared to hear our aboriginal land rights
case against the Federal Government, even though responsibility for
settling aboriginal land rights is a matter of exclusive Federal
Government jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution.

The Federal Government lawyer arguing that the Federal Government
shouldn't be added to the Provincial Government action was the same
man who'd earlier intervened for the Federal Government on the side
of the Province when we tried to file our caveat.  The Judge who
agreed with him, a man named Moore, was also known to us.  Judge
Moore had earlier appointed an ex-oil company head lawyer to hear
our application for an injunction to freeze development activity in
our traditional area pending determination of our land rights, an
injunction which, to no one's great surprise, was denied after years
of procedural wrangling.  Judge Moore would later take only minutes
to grant the Provincial Government an "ex-parte" injunction to tear
down our barricades, without any procedural wrangling at all, since
we weren't even notified that the Province had applied for an
injunction.

During the summer of 1981, while we were still naively seeking
redress through the Canadian courts, the Provincial Government
unilaterally declared our community to be a Provincial Government
Hamlet, surveyed it, divided it up into little 2-acre plots and
tried to force our people into either leasing these plots or
accepting them as "gifts" from the Province.  People who agreed to
lease the plots or accept them as gifts were promised a variety of
programs and services; people who refused to go along were
threatened with everything from no programs and services to
literally having their homes bulldozed as "unauthorized improvements
to Provincial Crown land".

Fearing that acceptance of the Provincial Hamlet and Land Tenure
Program would jeopardize our aboriginal land rights by in effect
agreeing that our traditional lands were the Province's to give, we
asked the Province to delay implementation of their program until
its effect on our land rights could be determined.  Provincial
officials refused, stating that they'd already checked the legal
implications of the program and been assured that there was "no
relationship between land claims and land tenure."

When we refused to cooperate with the Provincial Hamlet and Land
Tenure Program, Provincial officials tried to trick our people into
becoming involved.  One old woman, who can neither read nor write,
was told to make her mark on a piece of paper in exchange for free
firewood.  That piece of paper was in fact an application for a two
acre plot.  Another signed a land tenure application form after
being told that she was signing for a free Alberta Housing trailer.
A third signed a land tenure application form after being told that
she was signing a required census form.

When we protested Provincial Government efforts to try and trick our
people into jeopardizing their aboriginal land rights, Provincial
officials claimed that "a majority" of our people had requested and
supported their Hamlet and Land Tenure Program.

When we circulated and submitted a petition proving beyond any doubt
that a majority of our people opposed their program, Provincial
officials took the position that they wouldn't "deny the benefits of
land tenure to even a minority."

When we asked again that the Province delay implementation of their
Land Tenure Program pending determination of its possible effects on
our aboriginal land rights, Provincial Officials again refused, this
time claiming that a delay was "unnecessary", because, they said,
participation in their program was "purely voluntary".

When it became clear that we weren't getting anywhere with
Provincial officials because they specifically intended to use the
Provincial Hamlet and Land Tenure Program to subvert our aboriginal
land rights, we again appealed to the Federal Minister of Indian
Affairs for support and assistance.  The Federal Minister responded
by sending the Province a telex requesting a six-month delay in
implementation of the Provincial Hamlet and Land Tenure Program,
during which time, he said, he hoped to be able to resolve the
question of our aboriginal land rights. 

The Provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs replied to the Federal
Ministers telex with a letter, questioning our existence as a
separate and distinct aboriginal nation, and stating that our
community couldn't be part of a land settlement anyway, because, he
said -- completely contradicting his earlier assurances that there
was "no relationship between land claims and land tenure" -- our
community was now an official Provincial Government Hamlet and
therefore no longer available for purposes of establishing an Indian
reserve.

As our increasingly serious problems with the Alberta Provincial
Government clearly wouldn't be resolved until the basic question of
land ownership was settled, and since negotiation of aboriginal land
rights in Canada is constitutionally a matter of exclusive Federal
Government jurisdiction, we continued pressing the Federal
Government to commence negotiations regarding our aboriginal land
rights.  Late in 1981 officials of the Federal Office of Native
Claims and Federal Justice Department agreed, without prejudice to
their legal position, that we indeed had land and sub-surface rights
in the area originally selected.  In addition they indicated that
they were prepared to discuss special hunting and trapping rights,
membership problems and special "catch-up" programs. 

Taking the position that there was now sufficient common ground
between the Federal Government and the Lubicon people to commence
negotiations, Federal officials decided that it was time to involve
the Provincial Government in our discussions.  A meeting between
Federal and Provincial officials was therefore arranged early in
1982.

During the meeting between Federal and Provincial officials,
Provincial officials rejected out of hand most if not all of the
points of supposed common ground discussed by representatives of
Federal Government and the Lubicon people.  Provincial officials
refused to consider the question of our land rights until they were
first satisfied that we had any land rights.  They refused to spell
out a timetable or procedure for determining whether or not we had
any land rights.  They refused to consider the land which had been
originally selected.  They refused to consider any compensation or
sub-surface rights.  And they refused to meet with any Lubicon
representatives.

Basically Provincial officials told Federal officials to provide
them with all of the information which the Federal Government had
used to determine that we had any land rights, and, they said,
they'd get back to the Federal Government at some unspecified time
in the future with a reaction.  In the meantime, of course,
Provincial officials were proceeding with implementation of their
Hamlet and Land Tenure Program, clearly intended to subvert our
aboriginal rights, and with development of our traditional lands,
which not only jeopardized our aboriginal land rights in the legal
sense, but literally threatened our traditional way of life and
ability to feed our families.

It should be understood that our traditional lands and way of life
were not being destroyed merely as the result of unfortunate but
unavoidable contact between a modern industrial society and a
traditional hunting and trapping society.  Our traditional lands and
way of life were being deliberately destroyed as part of a legal
strategy on the part of the Alberta Provincial Government to steal
our lands and resources.  The Canadian courts have held that those
who would assert aboriginal land rights must be able to show that
they continue to pursue a traditional way of life.  Our traditional
economy and way of life were being deliberately destroyed by the
Alberta Provincial Government, and our people forced onto welfare in
order to survive, so that Provincial Government lawyers could go to
court and argue, as they then did, that we no longer enjoy
aboriginal land rights over our traditional lands, because we no
longer pursue a traditional way of life but rather subsist on
welfare.

Between 1979 and 1982 over 400 oil wells were drilled within a 15
mile radius of our community.  The number of moose we killed for
food dropped from 219 in 1979 to 19 by 1983.  Average income from
trapping during the same period dropped from over $5,000 per trapper
to less that $400.  Dependence on welfare increased from under 10%
to 95%.  Social and medical problems of all kinds proliferated,
including family break-down, still-born and prematurely born babies,
suicide and alcohol-related violent death. 

Our traditional lands and way of life were rapidly being destroyed
and our lawyers advised us that our parallel legal actions before
the Canadian courts would take ten or more years to adjudicate.  It
was obvious that there wouldn't be anything left to talk about if
the other side was allowed to proceed unhindered for another ten
years.  It was also obvious that the other side understood this
point as well as we did.  We therefore commenced a fourth legal
proceeding, this time asking the courts to freeze development
activity in our traditional area pending settlement of the land
rights question.

Provincial Government and the oil company lawyers responded to this
fourth legal action predictably, by arguing procedural points
designed to prevent a judicial determination of the land rights
question.  They argued that our application for an emergency
injunction to stop the oil companies from doing irreparable damage
to our traditional lands and way of life shouldn't even be heard,
because, they said, the Provincial Government enjoyed "immunity"
from injunctive relief.  They argued that we couldn't sue the oil
companies either, because, they said, the oil companies, including
Federally-owned PetroCanada, were merely agents of the Provincial
Government in the extraction of the oil resource and were therefore
covered by Provincial Government "immunity".  They argued that the
court shouldn't even hear the case because, they said,  the damages
weren't irreparable -- the trees would grow back.  They argued that
the court shouldn't hear the case even if the damages were
irreparable, because, they said, even irreparable damages could be
compensated with money.  They argued that the court shouldn't hear
the case even if the damages were irreparable and couldn't be
compensated with money, because, they said, too much was
economically at stake for Canadian society as a whole.  And they 
argued that the court shouldn't even hear the case, because, they
said, we would never be able to pay back the Province and the oil
companies for the money lost in the interim if we were to later lose
our main or aboriginal rights action.

Concluding arguments on the procedural objections raised by
Provincial Government and oil company lawyers were heard on December
2, 1982.  In Alberta such procedural points are typically decided
from the Bench and never take more than a day or two to decide.
However in our case a decision was not brought down by the ex-oil
company head lawyer turned Provincial court judge until March 2,
1983, exactly three months to the day from the time concluding
arguments were heard.  These three months coincided with the oil
companies winter development season, which is of course the period
of most intense development activity in our part of the world since
the ground at this time of the year is frozen allowing for the
relatively easy transport of heavy equipment.  In other words, while
the ex-oil company head lawyer turned Provincial court judge was
considering the procedural points raised by Provincial and oil
company lawyers, the Province and the oil companies were proceeding
to do the very things which we were seeking to stop with our
emergency injunction.

Our application for an emergency injunction was then heard for a
full month  the following fall.  All of the evidence was by way of
sworn affidavits.  We submitted the sworn statements of our Elders
and a number of relevant non-Indian experts describing and assessing
the effects of development activity upon our traditional lands and
way of life.  Provincial Government and oil company lawyers
submitted no affidavits at all on traditional way of life.  They
simply asserted that "any aboriginal way of life has already been
unalterably affected by the encroachment of modern life", and that
there was therefore nothing left to destroy, while, they said,
Provincial Government and oil company revenues would be adversely
affected if an injunction were granted.

The ex-oil company head lawyer turned Provincial court judge hearing
our application for an emergency injunction agreed with Provincial
Government and oil company lawyers, finding, despite uncontested
evidence regarding destruction of our traditional way of life, that
"the evidence simply does not establish a way of life by the
Applicants which is being destroyed by the Respondents".  Moreover,
he concluded, "I am more than satisfied that the Respondents would
suffer large and significant (money) damages if injunctive relief in
any of the forms sought by the Applicants were granted". 

The ex-oil company head lawyer turned Provincial court judge then
went on to assess court costs against us for the procedural points
which we won, as well as for the cost of Provincial Government and
oil company lawyers in an amount four times greater than the largest
amount shown on the standard court tariff sheet governing such
calculations, as well as for "costs in any case".  "Costs in any
case" means that we're liable for all of the costs of our efforts to
protect our traditional lands and way of life even if another court
later agreed that we retained continuing aboriginal title to our
traditional lands.  In such an event the Provincial Government and
the oil companies would be legally declared to be trespassers on our
land, but we would still have to pay the costs of trying to stop
them from trespassing and destroying our way of life.  

We appealed the decision of the ex-oil company head lawyer turned
Provincial Court judge to the Alberta Court of Appeal, where the
Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal, a man named
McGillivray, put himself at the head of a three man panel selected
to hear our appeal.  Before becoming a Provincial Court Judge Mr.
McGillivray had been the family lawyer for Alberta Provincial
Premier Peter Lougheed. He was well known to be a close personal
friend of Mr.  Lougheed. He'd given Mr. Lougheed his first job in
the Calgary law firm of Fenerty, McGillivray and Robertson. 
Robertson is Jack Robertson -- the senior oil company lawyer on the
case.

 Mr. McGillivray died before hearing our appeal and was publicly
eulogized by his close personal friends and associates -- Peter
Lougheed and Jack Robertson.  His legacy, however, carried on.  He
was replaced as Chairman of the three judge panel by a man who'd
formerly been President of the governing political party in Alberta,
and who is generally given credit for convincing Premier Lougheed to
run for leader of that political party. 

On January 11, 1985, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the decision
of the ex-oil company head lawyer turned Provincial court judge,
varying the rationale for that decision in a way which provided
additional insight into the minds of those responsible for the
deaths of our unborn babies.  The Alberta Court of Appeal found that
we didn't need an emergency injunction to protect our traditional
lands and way of life, because, they said, we could "restore the
wilderness" with money damages if we were ever able to prove that we
owned the land. 

The notion of "restoring the wilderness" with money damages is of
course ridiculous.  No one really believes that it will ever be
possible to remove all of the oil company roads, seismic lines,
pipelines, battery stations and pump jacks.  No one really believes
that it will ever be possible to replace all of the trees and
animals.  And even if it were possible to replace and restore these
things -- which it clearly is not -- no one really believes we will
ever be able to return to the valued way of life which we enjoyed
before our traditional territory was invaded and devastated by
development activity.  Talking about "restoring the wilderness" with
money damages in this context is like talking about restoring with
money damages the innocence of a little girl who has been brutally
raped -- some things simply can't be fixed or prettied up with
money, no matter what the learned Judges of the Alberta Court of
Appeal might think. 

We therefore appealed the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada, who declined to hear our appeal without
bothering to say why.  The Supreme Court decision not to hear our
appeal was also made by a panel of three judges, one of whom was an
ex-oil company lawyer who's since retired from the bench and been
appointed to the Board of Directors of a large petro-chemical
conglomerate in Alberta with significant interests in our
traditional area.

As we became more experienced with Canadian legal and political
institutions, we realized that our appeals to truth, justice,
honour, fairness, integrity and the rule of law were falling on deaf
ears.  We therefore began increasingly addressing our appeals for
redress to our aboriginal brothers and sisters, to human rights
organizations, to the churches, to organized labour, to
international organizations concerned with civil and political
rights, and to individual human beings across the country and around
the world concerned with oppression and injustice.  Over time our
message was heard by a growing number of concerned groups and
individuals and together we began having an impact on both levels of
Canadian Government. 

In October of 1983 the World Council of Churches wrote then Canadian
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau charging the Alberta Provincial
Government and dozens of multi-national oil companies with "actions
which could have genocidal consequences".  The World Council of
Churches letter was followed by an on-site visit of senior Canadian
Church leaders who reported "serious human rights violations" and
confirmed that "The traditional lifestyle of the Lubicon Cree is in
serious jeopardy".  The Chairman of the University of Calgary
Anthropology Department charged the Alberta Government with
"destroying a whole social order".  The Curator of Ethnology at the
Museum of the American Indian in New York City charged "ethnocide",
which he defined as "tearing apart the very fabric and meaning of
life. " A Special Parliamentary Committee on Indian Self-Government
conducting a nation-wide tour reported that the plight of the
Lubicon people is "one of the most distressing problems the
Committee encountered."  The Toronto Globe and Mail, Canada's most
prestigious and only national newspaper, editorialized that "meaner
treatment of helpless people could scarcely be imagined".  The CBC
Journal, Canada's most prestigious national TV news program,
prepared a special documentary report concluding that "The Lubicon
Lake Indians have survived half-a-century of official neglect and
political deceit...(but)...cannot survive the destruction of the
land around them."  The New York Times printed a full page article
on the situation reporting that "The plight of the Lubicons has
sparked worldwide concern". 

Faced with growing national and international attention and concern,
on November 26, 1984, the newly appointed Federal Indian Affairs
Minister David Crombie agreed to appoint an "special envoy" to try
and resolve the question of our outstanding aboriginal land rights.
He said, "I think it's time to make a deal."  He also agreed to
provide us with desperately needed financial assistance to help
cover the legal and other costs which we'd incurred over the
previous five years in our struggle to survive -- including a bank
loan which was rapidly coming due. 

On January 21, 1985, we received a telephone call from Mr. Crombie's
office asking for our reaction to the possibility of the Hon. E.
Davie Fulton being appointed "special Lubicon negotiator".  We
checked Mr. Fulton's credentials and reputation.  We learned that
Mr. Fulton is a former Federal Justice Minister and Supreme Court
Judge in British Columbia with a reputation for fairness,
independence and commitment to the rule of law.  We didn't think
that we'd do better with a non-aboriginal person.  We therefore
advised the people in Mr. Crombie's office that we'd welcome Mr.
Fulton's appointment as "special Lubicon negotiator". 

On January 27th Mr. Crombie's Chief of Staff announced the
appointment of Mr. Fulton "as a special negotiator to help settle
the Lubicon Lake native land dispute."  He said that Mr. Fulton
"will do a fact-finding report for (Mr. Crombie) to suggest ways
that the Lubicon Lake dispute could be resolved."

Our first meeting with Mr. Fulton occurred the evening of April 9,
1985, after which he spent the night in our community staying with
one of our old men.  The next morning he flew over our traditional
territory in a helicopter, ate lunch with us and then attended a
community meeting.  His presence overnight in our community was a
new experience for us.  No other representative of either level of
Canadian Government, before or since, has ever spent the night in
our community.

Mr. Fulton explained that he would be conducting an independent
inquiry into our situation.  He made clear, much to our initial
dismay, that he "represented" neither the Minister nor the Federal
Government.  Rather, he said, he hoped to be able to clearly
delineate the positions of both levels of Canadian Government and
the Lubicon people; to discuss and obtain the reactions of each of
the three parties to the positions of the other two; to prepare a
"discussion paper" identifying common ground and including his own
comments and reactions; to share and review his discussion paper
with each of the three parties, hopefully in the context of meetings
attended by all three of the parties; and to then prepare a final
report with recommendations for the Minister.  He said that he hoped
it would be possible to find a solution acceptable to all of the
parties.  However if a mutually acceptable solution wasn't possible,
he said, then "somebody is going to have to make a decision and take
action".

Mr. Fulton's approach was not at all what we'd expected.  We'd
expected a representative of the Federal Government with whom we
could negotiate a settlement of our aboriginal land rights -- not
another inquiry.  Moreover after our experience with the Canadian
Courts we really didn't believe that there was any such thing as an
independent Canadian Government inquiry.  We didn't see how Mr.
Fulton could be appointed by the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs
and still represent neither the Minister nor the Federal Government.
And we frankly questioned the value of the exercise Mr. Fulton was
proposing. 

Mr. Fulton told us he wasn't an authority in the area of Indian land
rights, but that he did have "a deep sense of what is just, what is
fair."  He said he didn't yet know the full details of the Lubicon
situation, but that he did knew enough to know that part of his job
was going to be one of "building trust", and that trust would have
to be "earned". 

We listened to Mr. Fulton and decided to work with his proposed
inquiry, partly because we didn't have many options, and partly,
despite our growing cynicism about representatives of both levels of
Canadian Government, Mr. Fulton impressed us as a man of honour and
integrity.  During the course of the next year we had many tough
discussions with Mr. Fulton, and disagreed with him on many things,
but he never once gave us reason to doubt his integrity or his
sincerity.  He earned our respect and our trust. 

Moreover we came more and more to appreciate the wisdom of Mr.
Fulton's independent inquiry approach.  Instead of merely reflecting
the continually changing but always adversarial position of the
Government, Mr. Fulton effectively put himself in a position to take
testimony equally from both levels of Canadian Government and the
Lubicon people, to assess the factual accuracy of that testimony, to
apply appropriate legal and other tests, and then to argue an
independent settlement position based in the facts, based in the law
and based in his firmly held views of justice and equity.  

We asked Mr. Fulton about Mr. Crombie's commitment to provide us
with desperately needed financial assistance, which we'd been told
by the people in Mr. Crombie's office to discuss with Mr. Fulton. 
Mr. Fulton said that he knew nothing about Mr. Crombie's commitment
to provide us with financial assistance, and he also made clear that
he thought follow-up on this item should rather be the
responsibility of Departmental officials.  However, given the
urgency of our financial plight, and especially our outstanding bank
loan, Mr. Fulton agreed to check into the situation, which he then
did, ultimately making an "interim report" to the Minister on July
12, 1985, recommending "a payment in advance of anticipated
compensation sufficient to retire all outstanding Band debts, or at
least adequate to cover the Band's bank loan." 

A couple of weeks after making his "interim report" to the Minister,
Mr. Fulton reported that his recommendation to provide a payment in
advance of anticipated compensation had the support of Departmental
officials, and the Minister, and that it was being processed for
submission to Treasury Board and the Cabinet Committee on Social
Services.  Six weeks later, however, we learned that Mr. Fulton's
recommendation still hadn't left the Department. 

We checked to find out why Mr. Fulton's recommendation had yet to
leave the Department and learned that Federal Justice Department
lawyer Ivan Whitehall, the same Justice Department lawyer who'd
intervened for the Federal Government on behalf of the Province
during the caveat case, and who more recently had been providing
Provincial Government and oil company lawyers with advice and
assistance as to how to defeat our application for an emergency
injunction, "got to the Minister".  Mr. Whitehall, we were advised,
opposed the Fulton Inquiry, took the position that we should "go to
court" if we thought we had any rights, and argued that providing us
with any money would only increase our ability "to cause trouble." 

On Friday, December 6, 1985, Mr. Fulton delivered the first draft of
his "Discussion Paper", which basically affirmed the existence of
our rights, confirmed the nature of the circumstances to which we
were being subjected, and outlined Mr. Fulton's considered proposals
regarding the various settlement issues.  Mr. Fulton's next step,
mutually agreed by all three parties prior to commencement of his
Inquiry, called for Mr. Fulton to review his "Discussion Paper" with
each of the parties, hopefully in the context of meetings attended
by all three parties, and then to prepare a final report with
recommendations for the Minister. 

Four days later, however, on Tuesday, December 10, 1985, Provincial
Native Affairs Minister Milt Pahl called a "major press conference"
to announce that the Alberta Government had "settled" Lubicon land
rights with an offer to transfer less than a third of the reserve
lands recommended by Mr. Fulton in his Discussion Paper -- an offer
which Mr. Pahl claimed had been accepted by Mr. Crombie -- an offer
which Mr. Crombie said that he'd rejected.  Regarding Mr. Fulton,
Mr. Pahl said:

    "Mr. Fulton has done a good job in crystallizing the issues,   
    but events have now gone beyond Fulton.  From the Province's   
    point of view Mr. Fulton's job is now done, his involvement
    over.  The Province plans no further meetings with Mr. Fulton".

With Provincial officials refusing any further meetings with Mr.
Fulton, the Fulton Inquiry was effectively over.  On December 20,
1985, Federal Indian Affairs Deputy Minister Bruce Rawson told us
that he'd already discussed "dropping" Mr. Fulton with Alberta
Government officials.  He said that it was now time "to move beyond
Fulton to a negotiator with a full Cabinet mandate".  He made clear
that the new negotiator would be someone "other than Fulton".

We told Mr. Rawson that the Federal Government of course had the
right to appoint whomever it pleased, but that we weren't prepared
to start all over just because Mr. Fulton hadn't concluded that we
had no rights.  We told Mr. Rawson that we'd been working with Mr.
Fulton for nearly a year and would expect that anyone who replaced
Mr. Fulton would start where Mr. Fulton left off. 

Mr. Rawson agreed that negotiations would start with Mr. Fulton's
Discussion Paper.  We learned later that Mr. Rawson made a similar
agreement with Mr. Fulton. 

In order to make the premature termination of the Fulton Inquiry
more politically palatable, Federal officials also approved Mr.
Fulton's recommendation to provide us the money needed to pay off
some of our debts, primarily our bank loan.  Since then Federal
officials have implied all kinds of demonstrably untrue things about
the intended purpose, actual use and accounting for this money,
which was in fact expended exactly as we said it would be. 

The new Federal negotiator was named Roger Tasse.  Predictably Mr.
Tasse's credentials and experience were quite different than Mr.
Fulton's.  While Mr. Fulton is a former Justice Minister and Judge
with a reputation for independence and fairness, Mr. Tasse is a
former Federal civil servant clearly accustomed to following
whatever orders he's given without qualm or question, and who has a
long-term and continuing relationship with the Canadian Security
Service.  (Mr. Tasse is the man to whom the old Canadian Security
Service (SS) reported during the period when it was charged with all
kinds of political dirty tricks, including the burning down of the
offices of a rival political party in Quebec.  Tasse then retired
from the civil service and the old SS was replaced with the new
Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), after the old SS
came under increasingly heavy criticism for having "a police
mentality and being unable to distinguish between legitimate dissent
and political subversion".  When Tasse resigned as Lubicon
negotiator after being charged with conflict of interest for
supposedly negotiating with Mr. Rawson on behalf of some Indians
while at the same time reporting to Mr. Rawson regarding
negotiations with others, he was given another Security Services
appointment by the Canadian Government -- this time to study the
recommendations of a Security Intelligence Review Committee which
had in the meantime taken a look at the operation of the new CSIS
and concluded that it suffers from basically the same problems as
the old SS).

Originally negotiations with Mr. Tasse were scheduled to commence on
March 1, 1986, with the Provincial Government involved as an
observer.  However developments with both levels of Canadian
Government caused those plans to be changed.

Two weeks before negotiations were scheduled to begin, the
Provincial Government commenced a Province-wide propaganda campaign
intended to subvert our aboriginal position in those negotiations.
Provincial Native Affairs Minister Milt Pahl wrote letters to the
editors of various newspapers around the Province falsely claiming
that our aboriginal rights "were satisfied by treaty".  Provincial
officials took out paid political advertisements dressed up to look
like public information notices claiming falsely that the Alberta
Government has the right to determine whether or not "there is
sufficient basis for an entitlement based on the facts presented".
And, on February 26th, Mr. Rawson phoned and asked that the start of
negotiations be put off until March 17th.

Having heard nothing from Mr. Rawson by March 19th, we phoned his
office and asked what was happening.  We were told that Mr. Rawson
was planning to call "a protocol meeting" involving all three
parties for March 24th.

We replied that Mr. Rawson's concern for "protocol" hadn't been much
in evidence a couple of days earlier, when we were supposed to start
negotiations and didn't even receive the courtesy of a phone call
advising us of yet another delay.  As for the involvement of the
Provincial Government, we said, we weren't prepared to accept the
involvement of a Provincial observer while Provincial Government
officials were actively seeking to subvert the negotiations.

A short while later an indignant Mr. Rawson phoned Lubicon lawyer
James O'Reilly and charged that we were breaking the agreement to
allow a Provincial Government observer.  Mr. O'Reilly told Mr.
Rawson that agreement to allow a Provincial Government observer was
based on the notion that involvement of the Provincial Government
would facilitate negotiations between the Lubicons and the Federal
Government.  Current Provincial Government efforts to subvert those
negotiations, Mr. O'Reilly said, made clear that Provincial
Government involvement wouldn't be helpful.

After a number of phone calls back and forth between Mr. Rawson and
Mr. O'Reilly, we agreed to a meeting in Ottawa on March 27th to
discuss the Lubicon position on the involvement of a Provincial
Government observer.  The meeting was held in Ottawa because Mr.
Rawson was too busy to meet us in Edmonton.  However Mr. Rawson had
to leave the meeting in Ottawa early in order to catch a plane for
Edmonton, where he was to spend the Easter weekend with his family,
who live in Edmonton.

During the meeting on March 27th Mr. Rawson again charged that we
were breaking the agreement to allow the involvement of a Provincial
Government observer.  We pointed out to Mr. Rawson that Provincial
officials were actively seeking to subvert negotiations with their
public propaganda campaign.

Mr. Rawson said that the Province would have to agree to "a
publicity moratorium" in order to attend negotiations as an
"observer".  We pointed out to Mr. Rawson that the Provincial
Government had a similar "publicity moratorium" agreement with Mr.
Fulton when Mr. Pahl called his December 10th press conference, and
that they supposedly also had a similar "publicity moratorium"
agreement with him when they started their current propaganda
campaign.

Mr. Rawson said, "We're offering to sit down and negotiate with a
Provincial observer".  We told Mr. Rawson that we weren't prepared
to give Provincial officials access to negotiations, in which
technically they had no role to play, and which they were actively
seeking to subvert.

Mr. Rawson told us that we had to either agree to the involvement of
a Provincial observer "or go to the end of the line" as far as
negotiations with the Federal Government were concerned.  We told
Mr. Rawson that we'd either be negotiating or we'd be doing
something else.  We assured him that we wouldn't simply be waiting
for the Federal Government to solve the problems which it had
created for us by not meeting its constitutional responsibilities. 

Mr. Rawson said, "The meeting is a nullity" and walked out.  One 
week later we announced our boycott of the 1988 Calgary Olympic
Games, which ultimately included a nation-wide protest along the
entire route of the Olympic Torch Relay -- sponsored by PetroCanada
-- and museums from around the world refusing to loan artifacts to
the main Olympic cultural event -- a Shell Oil sponsored exhibit of
North American Indian artifacts. 

Initial Canadian Government reaction to announcement of our Olympic
boycott was one of amused disdain.  Within two weeks, however, there
were two major statements of support clearly indicating the
seriousness our boycott.  On April 12th aboriginal rights
organizations from across Europe announced their support.  And on
April 13th Churches from across Canada and the United States
announced their support. 

On June 3, 1986, two weeks before we were to appear before the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development to discuss lack of negotiations, a more conciliatory Mr.
Rawson agreed that negotiations could proceed without the
involvement of a Provincial Government observer.  While suspicious
about the timing of Mr. Rawson's change of mind, we still hoped that
it would be possible to engage in productive negotiations with the
Government of Canada.  We therefore asked the Standing Committee to
postpone our scheduled appearance until we had a chance to meet with
Mr. Tasse.

During our first negotiating meeting with Mr. Tasse on June 20th we
made clear that we weren't prepared to retain less reserve land than
other aboriginal people who signed treaty, as determined by the same
criteria.  Given historic precedent, we said, we were talking about
more than 90 square miles of reserve land. 

Mr. Tasse refused to agree with our position, saying that "The
Government has the right to change the basis for determining land
quantum".  He said that he was prepared to talk about "some amount
in excess of 25.4 square miles (set aside in 1939), but the amount
of additional land will have to be discussed".

We pointed out to Mr. Tasse that we weren't dickering over the price
of a used car.  We told him that we were talking about basic
principles of justice, fairness and equity which should guide our
negotiations.  We reminded him that the 25.4 square mile area was
recognized to be only a partial settlement even in 1939.  And we
told him that Government unilaterally changing the rules at this
stage couldn't possibly be considered fair, just or equitable.

Mr. Tasse said that he didn't want to talk about what was just, fair
or equitable.  If we wanted to talk about justice, fairness and
equity, he said, "go to court". 

Mr. Tasse said that he rather wanted to talk about what was
"practical".  He said "The Province will never agree to 90 square
miles and the Band will have to go to court".  "If these
negotiations fail," he said, "the Band will be in court for ten
years".

We told Mr. Tasse that the negotiations would certainly fail if we
couldn't at least agree that the negotiations should be guided by
the principles of justice, fairness and equity.  As for Mr. Tasse's
statement that our only alternative was to spend the next ten years
in court, we told him what we told Mr. Rawson when Mr. Rawson told
us to either knuckle under or "go to the end of the line".  We told
Mr. Tasse that we'd either be negotiating or we'd be doing something
else.  And we assured him that we wouldn't simply be relying upon
the Canadian courts to ensure our survival.

A couple of days later we were advised by one of Mr. Tasse's
associates that Mr. Tasse didn't want to commit himself to the
principle of equity during our meeting on June 20th "because he just
didn't know the implications of such an agreement".  We were also
told that Mr. Tasse "knows that he will have to address the question
of equity at the next meeting'.  

The next meeting with Roger Tasse occurred in our traditional
community of Little Buffalo Lake on July 8th.  At that meeting Mr.
Tasse tabled a written settlement offer from the Federal Government
which said that the Federal Government was only willing to talk to
those Lubicon people recognized as Indians by the Federal Government
prior to the passage of C-31 revisions to the Indian Act, or, in
other words, the basic list established by the Federal Government
following the 1942 McCrimmon removals, plus the direct, legitimate
descendants of the people on that list.  Regarding this partial list
of our members, Mr. Tasse said that the Government was prepared to
agree to the same amount of land per person as was retained by the
aboriginal people who signed treaty.  "In that sense," Mr. Tasse
said, "the Band is being treated the same as other Bands."

We told Mr. Tasse that he had a perverse sense of what was fair,
just and equitable.  We pointed out that his position on membership
would effectively disenfranchise more that half of our people of
their aboriginal land rights.  We pointed out that the aboriginal
peoples who'd signed treaty had determined their own membership,
using their own historic criteria -- not had their membership
determined by Federal bureaucrats using arbitrary and ever-changing
criteria which literally split up families and tore aboriginal
societies apart.  We told him that he was proposing to apply the old
Indian Act to us retroactively, after the Federal Government had
been forced by international pressure to change that Act as
completely unjust, unfair and discriminatory.  And we told him that
he was in breach of our pre-negotiation agreement that Mr. Fulton's
Discussion Paper would be used as the starting point for
negotiations, since Mr. Fulton had recommended that C-31 be used as
the policy of the day to determine membership.

In spite of constitutional recognition of the aboriginal rights of
all aboriginal people, Mr. Tasse said, "The Federal Government is
not prepared to accept that non-status and Metis people have any
aboriginal rights".  He said, "A different approach to different
groups is the way around this".  He said, "We are prepared to
identify an amount of land that could be transferred based on the
status people".  Regarding the people not on the Federal
Government's "status list", he said, "we will not ask them for a
release as to any rights they might have".  He said, "If they can go
to court and prove that they have any rights, then we might be able
to provide more land for them".

We told Mr. Tasse that the Lubicon people are all aboriginal people
related by family ties and historic ties to our traditional area. 
We told him that there was nothing more fundamental to us than the
fact that we are one people, and that we weren't prepared to let the
Federal Government split us up into arbitrary, artificial,
Governmentally determined groups with different rights and
responsibilities.  Therefore, we told him, we'd welcome him back to
our community for further negotiations if and when he had a proper
mandate to deal with us as a people.

Mr. Tasse spent the next few minutes going from person to person
asking them if they knew what they were "giving up for these non-
status people".  He approached one man who's a member of our
negotiating team and asked him if he knew what he was "giving up".
The man told Mr. Tasse, "You jackass, don't you realize that I'm one
of the non-status people you're talking about?"

Following our brief exchange Mr. Tasse returned to Edmonton, called
a press conference and commenced what was clearly a pre-planned
propaganda campaign designed to paint our position on land and
membership as both unreasonable and unrealistic.  He charged that we
were trying to use recent C-31 revisions to the Indian Act "to
jack-up (our) membership numbers and obtain more land than (we're)
entitled to."  He said, "The Band, in its wisdom, had decided that
it would allow a lot of non-Indians...to be Band members" and that
we were now demanding that "Government should give them land as
well".  He said that C-31 allows for the addition of new members,
including "non-Indians", but that it "does not create any land
entitlement".  And he said that our position on membership had
caused negotiations to break-down, because, he said, "the Federal
Government is in no position to negotiate a land settlement based on
a head count of non-Indians". 

In fact, of course, our position on land and membership pre-dates
C-31, in no way depends upon C-31, has remained unchanged over the
years and is consistent with the way land and membership has
historically been determined in Canada.  Our people are all
aboriginal people linked by family ties and historic ties to our
traditional area, whether or not the Federal Government considers
all of us to be "Indians" -- by whatever criteria Federal officials
happen to be using at the moment.  Moreover it's not the Lubicon
people but Canadian Government which is seeking to take land that
rightfully belongs to somebody else.  It's not the Lubicon people
but Canadian Government which is trying to manipulate membership
numbers in order to effect reserve land size.  And it's not the
Lubicon people who caused negotiations to break-down by adding
so-called "non-Indians" to our membership list, but the Canadian
Government who caused negotiations to break-down with a position on
membership which would literally require parents to disenfranchise
their own children merely to be able to talk to representatives of
Canadian Government about settlement of our unextinguished
aboriginal land rights.     

Ordinarily one would expect a negotiator to be negotiating, trying
to negotiate or at least not doing things which would adversely
affect his ability to negotiate.  After July 8th, however, Mr. Tasse
showed little interest in talking to us about negotiations or
anything else, and rather spent the next year, until he was forced
to resign over conflict of interest charges, trying to sell the
Government's artfully conceived propaganda line on our situation.
The way he handled this propaganda campaign provides insight into
the true nature of the job he been hired by the Federal Government
to do.

On October 20th, for example, Mr. Tasse met with an interchurch
coalition called Project North to discuss our situation.  The report
we received from Project North regarding that meeting was typical of
reports we received from others meeting with Mr. Tasse.

Despite independent confirmation from a number of qualified
observers, Mr. Tasse denied that our traditional economy and way of
life was being destroyed by development activity.  He claimed that
the moose hadn't disappeared from our traditional area because of
development activity at all, but rather because we'd killed off all
the game.  He claimed that massive development activity was actually
good for the moose population because, he said, it cleared away old
vegetation and allowed for new growth.  And he claimed that the
miles and miles of new development roads made hunting and trapping
easier for us, by providing access to otherwise remote and
inaccessible areas. 

Regarding charges of genocide by qualified independent observers
who've spent considerable time in our community studying the
problems we face, Mr. Tasse said that these charges were also false.
He said that he'd attended a meeting in our community for an hour or
so one morning and could safely report that "The Lubicon people are
a neat, clean, tidy and reasonably well-off people".  He also
reported that our houses and children were "neat, clean and tidy".

Regarding the break-down in negotiations, Mr. Tasse repeated charges
that we'd "added new members to (our) Band list under C-31 to try
and obtain more land than (we're) entitled to".  Moreover he claimed
that we'd "adhered to Treaty 8 and therefore only had an outstanding
land entitlement under Treaty 8, not unextinguished aboriginal land
rights".  He described the Government's position that we've adhered
to Treaty 8 as "not negotiable".  (Adhering to treaty is a formal
process not unlike the signing of treaty, involving the signing of
an actual adhesion document.  We never signed any such adhesion
document, as both levels of Government well know.  In fact the
signing of an adhesion document is one of the things which both
levels of Canadian Government have since indicated that they will
require as part of any settlement agreement.)

Regarding the re-commencement of negotiations, Mr. Tasse repeated
that we could never win legal recognition of our land rights in
court, because, he said, "a legal determination would take too
long".  Contradicting his earlier comment that the very nature of
our land rights was "not negotiable", he said that the Federal
Government's position on the issues is flexible, and that the
Federal Government is prepared to enter into negotiations at any
time, but that the Lubicon people were refusing to negotiate.  He
charged that we were "more interested in European travel than
negotiating", referring to our work with  European Support Groups. 
     
Lastly Mr. Tasse told the representatives of Project North that "for
some reason the Lubicon people are after (his) blood, even though
(he's) only trying to do (his) job and what's best for the Band". 

Fortunately Mr. Tasse looks like what he is and so few people
believed him.  Our only other contact with him after the meeting in
Little Buffalo on July 8th was in the form of an exchange of letters
occurring at the end of July, 1986. 

On July 21st Mr. Tasse wrote us a letter, obviously for the record,
which concluded:
     
    "I would like to reiterate that my offer remains on the table
    for discussion. I would be pleased to know if any of the
    elements of the proposal are within the realm of what you hope
    to achieve and whether talks could resume on that basis. 
    Alternatively, I would be pleased to consider, as a basis for
    discussion, a detailed proposal from you which sets out your
    aims."

We responded to Tasse's July 21st letter on July 25th with a letter
he never bothered to acknowledge.  Our letter concluded: 

    "You say that you would be pleased to consider, as a basis for
    discussion, a detailed proposal from us.  You already have it,
    in the form of Mr. Fulton's revised Discussion Paper, which
    you've repeatedly said was your starting point anyway.  Start
    with Mr. Fulton's revised Discussion Paper and we're prepared to
    talk.  But don't expect us to agree to negotiations based on
    terms which would, by definition, deny us our rights before we
    even begin". 

Contacted by the press following the July 8th meeting, Mr. Fulton
expressed "disappointment" over the break-down in negotiations.  He
also expressed  "surprise" that his Discussion Paper wasn't being 
used as the starting point for negotiations, because, he said, he'd
been told by Federal officials that it would be. 

In January of 1986 Mr. Rawson had asked Mr. Fulton to include a
recommendation in his final report to the Minister that there be a
Provincial Government "observer" at bi-lateral negotiations between
the Federal Government and the Lubicon people.  Mr. Fulton told
reporters that he'd instead recommended no Provincial Government
involvement until agreement had been achieved between the Lubicon
people and the Federal Government.  Should negotiations between the
Federal Government and the Lubicon people break-down, Mr. Fulton
said, he'd recommended "a direct reference to the Supreme Court on
the question do the Lubicon people retain continuing native title".
He explained that a direct reference to the Supreme Court would
circumvent years of procedural and other delays which would be
unavoidable following the normal route.  If the highest court in the
land ruled that we never ceded our aboriginal land rights, Mr.
Fulton said, "the claim would be settled and the Band would be
entitled to enormous compensation".

Provincial Attorney General Jim Horsman, whose Government had of
course for years used every imaginable legal and political tactic to
delay, frustrate and forestall settlement of our aboriginal land
rights -- including overt subversion of Mr. Fulton's efforts to seek
a negotiated settlement -- reacted to Mr. Fulton's direct reference
recommendation by saying, incredibly, that a direct reference would
take too long to achieve settlement.  He said:

    "It (the direct reference) would drag on and on and on, and we
    would like to see it resolved much more quickly".

Federal negotiator Tasse, who'd earlier argued that we had no choice
but to negotiate a settlement since a judicial determination would
take too long, responded to Mr. Fulton's direct reference
recommendation by making clear that the Federal Government would
make a direct reference technically impossible, by denying and/or
refusing to admit the basic facts of our situation, such as whether
or not we constitute a separate and distinct aboriginal society.  He
said:

    "The Lubicon case will not lend itself to a reference to the
    Supreme Court because there are still too many facts in
    dispute".

On November 17, 1986, we received a letter from the newly appointed
Federal Minister of Indian Affairs Bill McKnight urging us "to
return to the negotiating table to further explore the (Tasse)
offer".  We responded the same day with a letter indicating that we
were ready to proceed with negotiations any time that the Federal
Government was prepared to honour the pre-negotiation agreement to
use the Fulton Discussion Paper as the starting point for
negotiations.

Our June 19th appearance before the Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Aboriginal Affairs, which had been postponed when Mr. Rawson
agreed to negotiations without Provincial Government involvement,
had been re-scheduled for February 11, 1987.  The purpose of our
February 11th appearance was to discuss the break-down in
negotiations.  Mr. Fulton had also been asked by the Committee to
appear and had agreed to do so.

On February 9th, two days before the scheduled Standing Committee
meeting, Lubicon lawyer O'Reilly received a hand-delivered letter
from Mr. McKnight.  The letter claimed that the Federal Government
was honouring the agreement to use the Fulton Discussion Paper as
the starting point for negotiations but that there was more than one
way to interpret the Fulton Discussion Paper.  The letter therefore
proposed a meeting between the Lubicon people and Mr. Tasse to talk
about different possible interpretations of the Fulton Discussion
Paper.

Rather than again postpone our scheduled appearance before the
Standing Committee while we tried to assess Federal Government
intentions, as we'd done when Mr. Rawson contacted us immediately
before our last scheduled Standing Committee appearance, we decided
to use our Committee appearance to issue Mr. McKnight a public
challenge.  We therefore up-dated the Committee on developments
since the premature termination of the Fulton Inquiry and then made
the following public proposal to Mr. McKnight:

    1.) That the earlier agreement to use Mr. Fulton's Discussion
        Paper be publicly reaffirmed;

    2.) That the Government of Canada publicly release the Fulton
        Discussion Paper so that people can read it and judge for
        themselves what it says;

    3.) That Mr. Fulton be officially appointed an independent
        arbitrator or mediator charged with keeping the negotiations
        honest and on track (In this capacity Mr. Fulton could also
        answer any questions about how he intended his Discussion
        Paper to be interpreted);  

    4.) That the cost of Mr. Fulton's involvement be borne by the
        Government of Canada, but to avoid what happened to Mr.
        Fulton earlier, that he report to the Parliamentary Standing
        Committee on Aboriginal Affairs rather than the Government
        regarding the conduct of negotiations.

Asked by the Committee for his views, Mr. Fulton offered that he
thought the term "mediator" was better than "arbitrator". 
Otherwise, he said, he was prepared to support the Lubicon proposal
and work in the way suggested.  

On May 5th, two days before we were scheduled to participate in a 
conference of European Support Groups to discuss the Lubicon
situation, we received a hand-delivered letter from Mr. McKnight
supposedly responding to our February 12th proposals.  By this point
the timing and intent of Federal Government moves had gone beyond
being suspicious to being obvious.  The only time we heard from the
Canadian Government was immediately before some major public
occasion when they were trying to deflect or defuse our efforts to
respond to their steady barrage of deceitful propaganda. 

Mr. Rawson, for example, walked out of the meeting on Provincial
Government involvement on March 27th and nothing further happened
until July 3rd -- over two months later but only two weeks before we
were scheduled to appear before the Parliamentary Standing Committee
to discuss lack of negotiations.  We wrote Mr. Tasse on July 25th
regarding our position on use of the Fulton Discussion Paper as the
starting point for negotiations and heard nothing back until
February 9 -- nearly 7 months later but only two days before we were
again to appear before the Parliamentary Standing Committee to
discuss the break-down in negotiations.  We tabled our proposal
regarding the reinvolvement of Mr. Fulton before the Standing
Committee on February 11th and received no response until May 5th --
nearly three months later but only two days before we were scheduled
to discuss the Lubicon situation at a conference of European Support
Groups. 

Mr. McKnight's May 5th letter indicated that he had "some
flexibility on the initial (membership) proposal tabled (by Tasse)
last July", but he rejected our proposals to re-involve Mr. Fulton
and publicly release the Fulton Discussion Paper.  His stated reason
for rejecting the re-involvement of Mr. Fulton contradicted earlier
Federal Government insistence on involving the Provincial Government
in negotiations, and his stated reason for not publicly releasing
the Fulton Discussion Paper was immediately contradicted by
officials of the Provincial Government.

Regarding his refusal to re-involve Mr. Fulton, Mr. McKnight said:

    "The Lubicon Lake Band's land claim is a matter which must be
    addressed between us and, if sufficient agreement can be
    secured, subsequently with the Province of Alberta.  As a
    result, I am not prepared to entertain any third parties at the
    negotiating table".

Regarding his refusal to publicly release the Fulton Discussion
Paper, Mr. McKnight said: 

    "...the Province of Alberta has advised my department of its
    understanding that its submissions to Mr. Fulton were made on a
    confidential and without prejudice basis and that, as a result,
    Mr. Fulton's paper would not be released without the prior
    consent of your Band, Canada, and the Province.  The Province
    has also explicitly refused my department's request for its
    consent to release the paper.  Consequently, I regret that I am
    not prepared to release the paper."

Asked by reporters about Provincial Government refusal to release
the Fulton Discussion Paper, Provincial Native Affairs Minister Milt
Pahl told reporters "the document was commissioned by the Federal
Government, it's Federal Government property and it's up to the
Federal Government to release it".

We wrote back to Mr. McKnight on May 18th expressing interest in
further discussions on the membership question, pointing out we were
not proposing that Mr. Fulton be a "third party" to the negotiations
but rather a mediator, advising Mr. McKnight of statements by
Provincial officials that it was up to the Federal Government to
either release or not release the Fulton Discussion Paper, and
therefore asking Mr. McKnight to reconsider his position regarding
Mr. Fulton's re-involvement and public release of the Fulton
Discussion Paper. 

Tasse's resignation over conflict of interest charges was publicly
confirmed by Federal officials on July 8, 1987.  A month later, on
August 6th, we received a letter from Mr. McKnight acknowledging our
letter of May 18th, indicating that he was "encouraged" by our
willingness to discuss the membership question, formally advising us
of Mr. Tasse's resignation, ignoring our request that he reconsider
Mr. Fulton's re-involvement, ignoring our request that he reconsider
public release of the Fulton Discussion Paper, and informing us that
"Mr. Tasse's decision (to resign) will lead to a delay in renewing
negotiations while a replacement negotiator is sought".  

We responded to Mr. McKnight's August 6th letter the same day,
reiterating our willingness to hear what he had to say on the
question of membership, but also reminding him of our earlier
proposal to re-involve Mr. Fulton and publicly release the Fulton
Discussion Paper. 

On the same day that we were acknowledging his letter telling us
that the Federal Government wouldn't be able to resume negotiations
until a new Lubicon negotiator had been appointed, Mr. McKnight was
in Calgary telling reporters that we were refusing to negotiate.  He
said:

    "Ottawa has offered to sit down with the Alberta Band and
    negotiate a settlement but until the Band agrees, there's
    nothing the Federal Government can do... You can't force a
    people to negotiate."

On August 26, 1987, Provincial Government officials confirmed that
nearly a third of our people were suffering from tuberculosis,
compared to only one out of 100,000 Canadians.  Provincial medical
personnel acknowledged that a tuberculosis epidemic of this
magnitude was likely caused by low resistance to infectious disease
related to destruction of our traditional economy and way of life.

The next day, facing renewed charges of genocide triggered by
announcement of the tuberculosis epidemic, Mr. McKnight wrote us a
letter responding to our letter of August 6th.  Contrary to his
public statements that we were refusing to negotiate, Mr. McKnight
again acknowledged our expressed willingness to discuss the
membership question.  He said that the Federal Government was still
unable to proceed due to lack of a Federal negotiator, but that he
expected "to be in a position to advise (us) in the near future as
to who the new negotiator will be and will be contacting (us) at
that time to arrange the necessary details for resuming
negotiations".  As for our requests to reinvolve Mr. Fulton and
publicly release the Fulton Discussion Paper, he said:

    "In regard to your requests for a third party at the negotiating
    table and for the public release of the Revised Discussion Paper
    prepared by Mr. Fulton, I must reiterate the position I outlined
    to you in my letter of May 1, 1987.  You will recall at that
    time I firmly stated my belief that this issue must be
    addressed, in the first instance, between ourselves through the
    previously agreed upon bilateral framework which has seen the
    successful resolution of other land claims.  At that time I also
    stated that I was not prepared to unilaterally breach the
    confidentiality and privilege the Province of Alberta attaches
    to Mr. Fulton's paper..."

On October 5, 1987 Mr. McKnight announced the appointment of a
Calgary lawyer named Brian Malone as the new Lubicon negotiator.
Asked about the Lubicon proposal that Mr. Fulton be reinvolved as an
independent mediator responsible to the Parliamentary Standing
Committee, Mr. McKnight said, "Fulton's too busy". 

Contacted by reporters about Mr. McKnight's remark that he was "too
busy", Mr. Fulton reconfirmed his continuing commitment "to do
anything to help, whether as negotiator, arbitrator or mediator". 
Moreover, Mr. Fulton said, he'd recently written Mr. McKnight
reconfirming his continuing commitment and availability. 

Contacted by reporters about his new appointment as Lubicon
negotiator, Mr. Malone announced that one of his first moves would
be to get "in touch with the Province", since, according to Mr.
Malone, "it's Provincial land that the Band is claiming". 

On October 10, 1987, Mr. Malone met with Lubicon lawyer O'Reilly. 
Mr. O'Reilly told Mr. Malone that Mr. McKnight had begged the
question of Mr. Fulton's reinvolvement with the position that there
were different ways to interpret the Fulton Discussion Paper, and
that Mr. McKnight's stated reasons for not reinvolving Mr. Fulton
simply weren't tenable.  As for Mr. Malone's public statement that
"it's Provincial land that the Band is claiming", Mr. O'Reilly told
Mr. Malone that the Lubicon people rejected Provincial Government
claims to unceded Lubicon land.

Mr. Malone apologized for his depiction of Lubicon land as belonging
to the Provincial Government, agreeing that he shouldn't have taken
a position on an arguable legal issue.  He admitted that he wasn't
familiar with the intricacies of Indian law nor the constitutional
aspects of the land transfer agreement.  Regarding Lubicon proposals
to reinvolve Mr. Fulton and publicly release the Fulton Discussion
Paper, Mr. Malone said that he'd consult with Mr. Fulton and get
back to Mr. O'Reilly.

On October 22nd Mr. Malone phoned Mr. O'Reilly and told Mr. O'Reilly
that he had a growing appreciation of the complexities of the
situation.  He said that he wanted to study the issues and consult
the parties before deciding on an approach.  He said that he'd
already met with Mr. McKnight and Mr. Tasse.  He said that he had a
meeting scheduled with Mr. Fulton for October 27th and Provincial
officials for October 29th.  He asked to meet with Mr. O'Reilly
again on November 2nd.  He promised Mr. O'Reilly that he wouldn't
make any decisions about how to proceed until after he'd spoken to
Mr. Fulton and met with Mr. O'Reilly on November 2nd.

On October 26th, prior to speaking with Mr. Fulton and getting back
to Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Malone announced that he'd decided "to invite
Fulton to sit in on negotiations as a conciliator and chairman" --
but reporting to no one.  Regarding earlier agreement to use the
Fulton Discussion Paper as the starting point for negotiations, Mr.
Malone denied that he was "required" to use Mr. Fulton's
"suggestions" as the starting point.  He said that Mr. Fulton's
"suggestions" were only "guidelines" and "not binding".

Mr. Malone also announced, contrary to Mr. McKnight's supposedly
firm refusal "to entertain any third parties at the negotiating
table", that he'd "decided to invite the Provincial Government to
join the negotiations as an equal".  He said that "Provincial
Government involvement is necessary because", according to Mr.
Malone, "the Provincial Government is responsible for wildlife
management, environmental protection and the land where the Lubicons
want a reserve".  "If the Lubicons are serious about wanting the
deal", Mr. Malone said, "then stop the nonsense -- let the Province
come".

Thus in one stroke Mr. Malone broke his agreement with Mr. O'Reilly
to talk to Mr. Fulton and get back to Mr. O'Reilly before deciding
how to proceed, proposed to emasculate Mr. Fulton's role in
negotiations, reneged on the agreement made at the time the Fulton
Inquiry was prematurely terminated to use the Fulton Discussion
Paper as the starting point for negotiations, and gave the
Provincial Government an effective veto, based in neither law nor
history, over the Federal Government's ability to negotiate a
settlement of our aboriginal land rights.

Two days later, on October 28th, Provincial Attorney General Jim
Horsman issued a press statement announcing the appointment of a
Provincial Lubicon negotiator and calling for the public release of
the Fulton Discussion Paper.  A spokesman for Mr. Horsman told
reporters that the Province was prepared to accept the membership
list agreed upon between the Federal Government and the Lubicon
people and transfer land on that basis.  The spokesman also said
that the Province was prepared to join the negotiations or negotiate
with Ottawa after agreement had been reached between the Lubicons
and the Federal Government.

The Provincial statement generated some very optimistic news
coverage predicting early settlement, since it appeared that the
Province no longer intended to block settlement, but was rather
prepared to meet its obligations under the land transfer agreement
in the way such obligations had always been met in the past; namely,
by simply transferring back to Federal jurisdiction the land which
the Federal Government required to settle aboriginal land rights.
This positive press coverage was then circulated widely among
museums supporting our Olympic boycott, urging them to reconsider,
since settlement was supposedly imminent.  Based on this positive
press coverage some European museums in fact reconsidered their
support for our boycott and agreed to loan artifacts.  

The next day, October 29th, Mr. Horsman told reporters that his
spokesman had been misquoted.  He denied that the Provincial
Government was willing to transfer the amount of land agreed between
the Federal Government and the Lubicon people.  He said:

    "We still must be convinced the proper numbers of members of the
    band are accounted for before we turn over the land as required
    under (the land transfer agreement).

Regarding proposed release of the Fulton Discussion Paper, the
Provincial spokesman said:

    "It's out there anyway, so we might as well release it".

The corrected Provincial Government position was then of course also
reported in the press, making clear that settlement was not so
imminent after all.  This less optimistic news coverage was not
shared with the European museums, however, although it was available
at the time the more optimistic press coverage was being used to
support the argument that artifacts should be loaned because
settlement was supposedly imminent. 

On November 2nd Mr. O'Reilly told Mr. Malone that Mr. Malone's
proposal to reinvolve Mr. Fulton as a conciliator and chairman
responsible to no one wasn't acceptable.  He told Mr. Malone that
the Federal Government should either agree to the reinvolvement of
Mr. Fulton as a mediator responsible to the Standing Committee or be
prepared to spell out publicly their reasons for not doing so.  He
pointed out Mr. Fulton's excellent credentials and unmatched
experience.  He pointed out that Mr. Fulton had been appointed by
the Federal Government to conduct an inquiry into the Lubicon
situation and had spent nearly a full year conducting that inquiry.
He pointed out that the Standing Committee was an official
Parliamentary Committee charged with oversight of aboriginal affairs
in Canada.  He asked Mr. Malone what Mr. Malone was afraid of.

Mr. Malone told Mr. O'Reilly that he had questions about Mr.
Fulton's objectivity and didn't see any reason why there should be
a report to the Standing Committee.  He said that Mr. Fulton
"looking over everybody's shoulder" might make the Band look good
but would constrain negotiations and wouldn't necessarily lead to
concessions and a negotiated settlement.  If negotiations break-down
after a very short period, Mr. Malone said, the Band will be
criticizing both levels of Canadian Government anyway, and he didn't
see the "usefulness" of a report to the Standing Committee or even
why the Band would "need" Mr. Fulton to criticize the Government. 
He said that the Band had demonstrated ability to effectively
criticize Canadian Government without any help from Mr. Fulton.  He
also expressed concern that we'd send a copy of any report filed
with the Standing Committee to the UN Human Rights Committee.

Mr. O'Reilly told Mr. Malone that there was no reason for concern if
the Federal Government was sincere about negotiations.  If
negotiations weren't successful, Mr. O'Reilly said, a report to the
Standing Committee would simply ensure that the public had a
credible, independent assessment of the reasons for the break-down,
rather than just conflicting versions from each side regarding what
went wrong.

Mr. Malone concluded the discussion by telling Mr. O'Reilly that
he'd have to talk to his "principals" about the possible
reinvolvement of Mr. Fulton.  Given the Lubicon position on
reinvolvement of Mr. Fulton, he said, he'd also have to obtain a
decision from Mr. McKnight as to whether or not Mr. McKnight wished
him to continue trying to get negotiations going. 

On December 9, 1987, Mr. Malone told reporters that the Federal and
Provincial Governments were negotiating a settlement of Lubicon land
rights without involving the Lubicon people.  He said that he'd been
negotiating with Provincial Lubicon negotiator John McCarthy for 5
weeks and that things were going "swimmingly". 

Mr. Malone said Mr. McKnight and Mr. Horsman would be meeting the
following week in Ottawa and that he expected them to agree on the
size of the Lubicon reserve.  He said, "We'll announce what the
agreement is before Christmas and then (the Lubicons) will have to
decide what to do".

Mr. Malone said that Treaty 8 gave the Minister the power to appoint
someone to determine and establish the reserve.  He said that Mr.
McKnight had appointed him and that he therefore had the power.  He
said, "The Band has realized that I can make a deal with the
Province and they (the Lubicons) are going to be left holding the
bag".

One reporter pointed out to Mr. Malone that we hadn't signed Treaty
8 and that Treaty 8 specifically said that reserve lands are
determined and established only "after consulting with the Indians
concerned..." 

Mr. Malone replied that he had "consulted" with the Lubicon Indians.
He said "I talked with O'Reilly twice".

Mr. Malone admitted that Mr. O'Reilly had refused to discuss reserve
lands until the question of Mr. Fulton's reinvolvement had been
settled.  However, he said, he knew generally what lands were
involved, since the Lubicon people had indicated publicly that they
intended to retain the lands set aside in 1939, plus they'd talked
generally to Mr. Fulton about what other lands would be involved.
"That selection by the Band", he said, "will be taken into account
in my negotiations with the Province of Alberta..."

Regarding the complete lack of any negotiations with the Lubicon
people, Mr. Malone said, "I talked to people involved who were
prepared to talk to me".  He claimed that he'd been forced to
proceed in this way, because, he said, "the Lubicon people have
built a wall around themselves". 

The wall which we'd built around ourselves, according to Mr. Malone,
was our demand that Mr. Fulton be reinvolved as an independent
mediator responsible to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs.  By making that demand, Mr. Malone said,
"They've put me in an impossible situation".

"It's not Mr. Fulton being involved", Mr. Malone said, "it's Mr.
Fulton reporting to the Standing Committee that's the killer".  He
claimed to have a legal opinion that a report to the Standing
Committee would have the effect of waiving normal "without
prejudice" protection.  "Without prejudice" simply means that offers
and proposals made in the context of negotiations can't be used to
support allegations of liability in court. 

The argument that Mr. Fulton reporting to the Standing Committee
would have the effect the effect of waiving normal "without
prejudice" protection is of course nonsense.  There's no reason why
a report to the Standing Committee on "without prejudice"
negotiations would in any way jeopardize the "without prejudice"
nature of such negotiations.  Rather what Mr. Malone was doing was
responding to Mr. O'Reilly's challenge to publicly spell out some
supposedly credible reason why Mr. Fulton shouldn't be involved as
an independent mediator responsible to the Standing Committee.  He
chose a so-called "legal" reason both to bamboozle people not
familiar with the legal concept involved, and because legal opinions
on such matters can almost always be argued endlessly.

On December 17, 1987, after due consideration and in light of the
continuing debate over the Lubicon proposal to reinvolve Mr. Fulton
as an independent mediator responsible to the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, members of the Standing Committee,
representing all three major political parties in Canada, voted
unanimously to have Mr. Fulton "report to the Committee on matters
affecting the land rights, negotiations, and the conduct of such
negotiations regarding the Lubicon Lake Band". 

Mr. Malone responded to the Committee decision by telling reporters
that "The Standing Committee decision on reinvolving Mr. Fulton
makes no difference".  He said that neither level of Canadian
Government were willing to give Mr. Fulton public reporting power,
because, he said, that would mean that anything the Governments said
in negotiations could be used against them in court.  He said that
he intended to keep talking to the Province without the involvement
of either Mr. Fulton or the Lubicon people and expected to be
announcing a settlement offer shortly.  If the Lubicon people
refused to accept the offer, he said, he'd recommend that the whole
matter be referred back to the Provincial Courts for a court imposed
settlement under our old friend Judge Moore.

Mr. McKnight publicly supported the position taken by Mr. Malone and
refused to consider Mr. Fulton's reinvolvement, because, he said,
"Mr. Fulton has already outlined his point of view in his Discussion
Paper".  "If the Lubicons do not wish to negotiate", Mr. McKnight
said, "then I am sure that the only alternative is to have no
settlement or to have a settlement imposed by the court".

Asked by reporters for his view of Government rejection of the
Standing Committee decision, Mr. Fulton denied that he lacked
"objectivity" or had become "a Lubicon advocate or champion".  He
said that the only thing he was advocating was a fair and just
settlement of an acknowledged long-term injustice. 

Mr. Fulton said he couldn't understand Mr. Malone's argument that
his reporting to the Committee would waive normal "without
prejudice" protection.  As a former Federal Justice Minister, former
BC Supreme Court Judge and prominent Canadian jurist Mr. Fulton
said, "I don't think their grounds for rejection carry much weight".
If there were any justification for the Government's position, he
said, their concerns should have been alleviated by an offer he'd
made to report to the Committee in-camera.  However, he said, Mr.
Malone had also rejected his offer to report to the Committee
in-camera.

If Mr. Malone thought he could announce a settlement of Lubicon land
rights without talking to us and then see what we were going to do
about it, we decided that we could announce a settlement of our
aboriginal land rights without talking to the Government of Canada
and then see what Mr. Malone was going to do about that.  On
December 21, 1987, therefore, we publicly announced the terms of our
settlement offer, including no less reserve land than was retained
by the aboriginal people in the surrounding area who signed treaty;
sub-surface rights to reserve lands like all other reserves in
Alberta; wildlife management and environmental protection rights
over our entire remaining traditional area similar to those
typically sought by aboriginal people negotiating settlement of
aboriginal land rights; establishment of a trapper's support program
for those Lubicon people wishing to continue trapping as a way of
life but who are no longer able to make a living at it because of
the effects of gas and oil development activity; the right of first
refusal regarding jobs and contracts resulting from development of
our traditional lands; housing and community facilities comparable
to other northern communities; development of reserve lands for
agricultural purposes; the right of self-government; on-going
programs and services like other recognized Indians in Canada;
compensation for the extensive destruction and exploitation of
traditional Lubicon lands, and reimbursement for costs incurred in
our struggle to achieve recognition and settlement of our aboriginal
land rights. 

In January of 1988 we started receiving copies of a "background
paper" on the Lubicon situation being distributed in Canada by the
Canadian Government and abroad by Canadian Embassies.  The document
was clearly an effort to counter growing international concern over
our plight, especially in light of the up-coming Calgary Winter
Olympics and our Olympic boycott.  It was also yet another dramatic
illustration of how little respect the Canadian Government has for
the truth.

The so-called "background paper" said, for example, that "After the
signing of Treaty 8 (in 1899), some Indian Bands chose to remain
nomadic and delay their acceptance of reserve land to later dates,
as in the case of the indigenous population in and around Lubicon
Lake".  In fact it's an indisputable fact of history that Treaty 8
Commissioners never entered our traditional territory, and that we
never signed Treaty 8 nor any other treaty with the Canadian
Government.

It said "in 1940 the Government of Canada agreed in principle to the
request for reserve lands in respect of the 127 Indians living at
Lubicon Lake...(and that)...this territory was to have become a
reserve in accordance with the provisions of Treaty 8...(but)...
because the transfer of land (from Provincial to Federal
jurisdiction) did not occur...the reserve was not established, and
in the 1950s the land ceased to be set aside for the purposes of the
Band".  In fact the 127 people who met with Government officials in
1930-40 were known at the time to be only a delegation of the total
Lubicon population, the transfer of land didn't occur because the
Federal Government failed to conduct the required land survey, and
the reason why reserve lands weren't recognized in the 1950s is that
Federal Government officials simply decided that it would be
"administratively inconvenient" for a reserve to be located in an
area they considered to be too isolated and inaccessible. 

It said that charges of genocide by the World Council of Churches
were investigated and debunked by Alberta Ombudsman Randall Ivany,
whom it described as "an expert totally independent to the
Provincial Government".  In fact Dr. Ivany was appointed by the
Alberta Provincial Legislature and operated under Provincial
Government legislation with funds provided by the Provincial
Government.  He had no "expert" credentials in any field relevant to
assessing aboriginal land rights or charges of genocide and before
commencing his so-called "investigation" publicly described WCC
charges of genocide as "ridiculous".  Following his so-called
inquiry Dr. Ivany admitted publicly that he didn't and couldn't
investigate much of what had been charged by the WCC, because, he
said, "it was beyond (his) jurisdiction".  And by the time the
Federal Government circulated its so-called Lubicon "background
paper" citing Dr. Ivany's report to counter WCC charges of genocide,
the conclusions of Dr. Ivany's supposed investigation into WCC
charges of genocide had long since been completely discredited.  

It said that negotiations between the Government of Canada and the
Lubicon people were "interrupted" by the Lubicon people in 1986,
that the Government of Canada made "repeated offers to return to the
negotiating table", and that the "Canadian proposal conveyed to the
Band at the time of the break-down in negotiations includes a
variety of provisions of potential long-term benefit to the Band". 
In fact the Federal Government caused negotiations to break-down
with a proposal which would have required us to agree to the
disenfranchisement of more than half of our people before
negotiations even began, and we responded to this so-called Federal
"proposal" with a counter proposal which the Federal negotiator
never even bothered to acknowledge. 

It said instead of agreeing to engage in productive negotiations,
"The Band has devoted much of the past four years to a variety of
national and international public relations activities designed to
call attention to its grievances, and...(to)...legal actions..."  In
fact we'd spent the previous 50 years seeking recognition of our
aboriginal land rights through normal Canadian political channels,
and only started seeking redress outside of normal Canadian legal
and political channels after it became unavoidably clear that there
was no redress possible through normal Canadian legal and political
channels.  In this regard it should be pointed out that
representatives of 18 independent countries sitting on the Human
Rights Committee of the United Nations, after studying our situation
for three years, agreed that we had no hope of effective redress
through normal Canadian legal and political channels.

It said that we'd "called for a boycott of the 1988 Calgary Winter
Olympics and a related cultural exhibition at the Glenbow
Museum...(even though)...there is no inherent linkage between the
Band's grievances and these two events".  In fact the people behind
both the Calgary Winter Olympics and the Glenbow exhibit were
demonstrably the same as those seeking to wipe us off the face of
the earth so that they could steal our lands and resources.

On January 18, 1988, and with the Calgary Winter Olympics only a
month away, Federal negotiator Malone hand-delivered a letter from
Mr. McKnight.  The letter advised us that the Federal and Provincial
Governments had failed to agree on a settlement of Lubicon land
rights, and it threatened to call an inquiry under the Federal
Inquiries Act to determine Lubicon membership unless we agreed by
January 29th to provide the Provincial Government with Lubicon
genealogical information, and also to allow full Provincial
Government participation in Lubicon land negotiations.

We responded to Mr. McKnight's January 18th letter on January 21st.
We reminded him that negotiation of aboriginal land rights in Canada
is a matter of exclusive Federal Government responsibility under the
Canadian Constitution.  We charged that his insistence on giving the
Alberta Provincial Government an effective veto over settlement of
our aboriginal land rights was a transparent attempt on his part to
blur responsibility for lack of settlement.  We pointed out that the
membership question had already been reviewed in detail with Federal
officials and submitted that an "inquiry" on the matter would only
be a redundant waste of time designed to shift the focus of the
debate from the relatively clear question of whether or not the
Federal Government has exclusive constitutional responsibility for
settling aboriginal land rights in Canada, to an endlessly
complicated series of questions about hundreds of individual
genealogies and all of the possible criteria which might conceivably
be used to assess the significance of different historical facts and
various genealogical relationships.  We reiterated our proposal to
commence bilateral negotiations between the Federal Government and
the Lubicon people with Mr. Fulton as an independent mediator
responsible to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs.  And we warned that the only kind of settlement agreement
which would be acceptable and workable would be one which took into
account the way that aboriginal land rights have been traditionally
negotiated in Canada.

Mr. McKnight again rejected reinvolvement of Mr. Fulton, because, he
said, "Fulton presented a Discussion Paper in which he expressed
personal opinions and therefore cannot be considered independent".
He addition, he said, he had legal advice that "the reporting
mechanism cannot be done without prejudice to the court". 

Regarding next steps, Mr. McKnight said, "Canada has two choices".
He said "We can either negotiate or we can settle through a third
party".  "If the Band agrees by January 29th to release Lubicon
genealogical information to the Province and allows full Provincial
Government participation in negotiations", he said, "we'll make a
commitment not to settle out of court with Alberta". 

We told Mr. McKnight that our rapidly worsening situation on the
ground left us with only two choices as well -- serious negotiations
or enforcement of our jurisdiction on the ground.  We told him that
our proposal to reinvolve Mr. Fulton was an effort on our part to
insure negotiations were serious and not merely another Federal
Government tactic to buy time and defuse criticism while our people
went down the drain.  If the Federal Government was serious about
negotiating a settlement of Lubicon land rights, we told Mr.
McKnight, then he should reinvolve Mr. Fulton as an independent
mediator responsible to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs.  If not, we told him, we would be forced to
assert our jurisdiction on the ground and defend ourselves and our
interests as best we could.

On February 1st Mr. McKnight announced that his January 29th
deadline had passed, that he'd given the Lubicon people "ample time
to come to the table", and that he'd therefore "either call a
Federal inquiry or take the Provincial Government to court in the
near future to settle the claim".  The purpose of taking the
Provincial Government to court would of course be effectively the
same as calling a Federal inquiry; namely, Lubicon genealogical
information would be subpoenaed and thereby made officially
available to the Alberta Provincial Government, shifting the focus
of the public debate from the relatively simple question of who has
exclusive constitutional responsibility for settling aboriginal land
rights in Canada -- which is clearly the Federal Government -- to a
hopelessly complex and deliberately unending debate over individual
genealogies, historical facts and the criteria which might possibly
be used in determining the significance of the genealogical data and
historical facts.

On February 4th Federal negotiator Malone announced that the Federal
Government had formally requested the Provincial Government to
transfer an unspecified amount of land for use as a Lubicon reserve.
If the Provincial Government refused to transfer the requested land,
Mr. Malone said, the Federal Government would take the Provincial
Government to court to settle Lubicon land rights. Provincial
Attorney General Horsman understandably reacted to the supposed
threat of court action like Brer Rabbit being threatened with the
briar patch.  Mr. Horsman said, "...it may be the only way that (the
Alberta Government) can get access to the genealogical records..."

The objective for both levels of Canadian Government at this point
was clear; namely, to get the Lubicon debate out of the political
arena, where they were facing increasingly severe criticism for
their handling of the Lubicon issue, and back into the courts -- so
that they could duck the issue politically, drag out the debate
forever, and conduct the debate by rules over which they exercised
greater control.  Once the issue was before the courts, Federal and
Provincial lawyers could endlessly debate history, genealogies and
legal issues.  Federal and Provincial politicians could refuse all
comment, taking the position that they couldn't comment on a case
before the courts.  And critics of Federal and Provincial
politicians could be chastised and even censored for commenting on
a case before the courts. 

On February 8, 1988, less than a week before the scheduled opening
of the Calgary Winter Olympics, the Provincial Government announced
construction of a huge new pulp mill just to the west of our
traditional territory.  The new pulp mill was to be built by a
"giant" Japanese forestry company called Daishowa at an estimated
cost of 500 million dollars -- including 75 million in Federal and
Provincial Government grants.  Nine and one half million of the 75
million in government subsidies was being provided by our "trustee",
Mr. McKnight, in his capacity as Minister responsible for a
multi-million dollar political slush fund called the Western
Diversification Fund, which had been recently established by the
Federal Government to try and prop-up flagging Federal Government
political fortunes in western Canada. 

The new Daishowa pulp mill was described as the largest hardwood
pulp mill in Canada, "producing" 1,000 metric tons of pulp a day,
340,000 tons to pulp a year -- 80% of which is to be shipped
directly to paper mills in Japan.  It will consume trees at the rate
of about 11,000 a day, over 4 million a year.  The trees to feed
this new Japanese pulp mill, we learned to our dismay, are to come
from a 29,000 square kilometre, 11,000 square mile timber lease
completely covering our entire traditional area.

Provincial Forestry Minister LeRoy Fjordbotten attempted to defend
the lease of Lubicon lands and sale of Lubicon trees to a Japanese
forestry company by arguing that it was a question of jobs versus
the rights of Indians.  In doing so he played fast and loose with
the facts.  It didn't work.  By this point too many people knew the
facts.  Moreover Mr. Fjordbotten's basic political calculation was
wrong.  People simply weren't prepared to write off an entire
aboriginal society for a few hundred jobs.

Mr. McKnight was equally unconvincing in his response to criticism
of the Daishowa project.  Publicly charged with conflict of interest
for simultaneously being constitutionally responsible for protecting
Indian rights in his capacity as Indian Affairs Minister, and for
encouraging development on unceded Indian lands in his capacity as
Minister responsible for the Western Diversification Fund, Mr.
McKnight claimed that his dual role enabled him to better protect
Lubicon rights.  In a statement worthy of Alice in Wonderland Mr.
McKnight claimed that he was protecting Lubicon rights by asking the
Provincial Government to exclude the 25 square miles set aside in
1939 from the Daishowa timber lease, and that the Lubicon people
would benefit economically from the new mill by working for Daishowa
as loggers, and/or by selling the trees from that last little
pitiful 25 square mile piece of our 4,000 square mile traditional
area to Daishowa.

The firestorm of critical reaction to the Daishowa announcement only
5 days before the scheduled opening of the Calgary Winter Olympics
was nearly overwhelming.  Even people not particularly sympathetic
to aboriginal rights reacted with outrage at the stupidity and
arrogance of such a move made while the whole world was watching.
The media were full of critical editorials, comments, letters to the
editor and political cartoons.  And perhaps most important of all,
Daishowa was being publicly criticized, both in Canada and Japan.

By the end of February we were receiving reports of Daishowa
threatening to back out of the pulp mill project.  On March 2nd we
received phone calls asking for meetings from both newly elected
Alberta Premier Don Getty, and from Daishowa Vice President and
General Manager Koichi Kitagawa.  Meetings were agreed with Premier
Getty in Edmonton on March 4th and with Mr. Kitagawa in Vancouver on
March 7th.  

On March 3rd Mr. McKnight and Mr. Horsman issued a joint press
release announcing that they'd reached agreement on transferring
from Provincial to Federal jurisdiction the 25.4 square miles set
aside in 1939.  The statement said that "this transfer of land would
be without prejudice to the positions of the parties...and would not
affect the right of the Band to seek additional lands through
negotiation or court action".  It said, "As soon as the transfer is
completed, Canada will set aside the land as a reserve...(and)...
Band members will begin building a community and identifying
economic development opportunities".  It said, "Both Governments are
pleased that a significant step has been taken as a result of
negotiations to-date and are committed to continuing this process".

The negotiating process referred to in the joint press statement of
course didn't include the Lubicon people, who learned about the
agreement from the media.  Acceptance of the 25.4 square miles under
such circumstances of course wouldn't be without prejudice to the
rights of the Lubicon people at all, since it would effectively
constitute Lubicon acceptance of a process for determining Lubicon
land and membership rights in which the Lubicon people weren't
involved.  As for seeking additional land through negotiations, Mr.
McKnight made clear that this would mean convincing the Alberta
Government that more land was "justified" -- not much of an option
when the Alberta Government had consistently taken the position that
not even the 25.4 was "justified".  Seeking additional land through
court action didn't represent much of an option either, given our
experience with the Canadian courts.  And the notion that the
Lubicon people "will begin building a community" on the 25.4 square
miles presumed that we'd accept a number of things which we'd never
accept, including Federal and Provincial determination of Lubicon
land and membership rights, less than a third of the reserve land
retained by similar aboriginal societies in northern Alberta, and
housing and other benefits for less than half of our people --
effectively splitting our society and tearing our families asunder.

Following release of the joint press statement Mr. Horsman told
reporters that Premier Getty would be "offering" us the 25.4 square
mile area during our scheduled meeting on March 4th.  Shortly
thereafter, in an obviously staged performance in the House of
Commons complete with planted question and orchestrated applause
from Government members, Mr. McKnight triumphantly announced that
"negotiations (between the Lubicon people and the Federal
Government) will begin soon on housing, a hospital and other
services..."

During our meeting with Premier Getty on March 4th Premier Getty
asked if it would be "helpful" to transfer the 25.4 square mile area
from Provincial to Federal jurisdiction.  He said that he was
prepared to do so if it would be "helpful". 

We told Premier Getty that any interim transfer of land would have
to be discussed in the context of bilateral negotiations between the
Federal Government and the Lubicon people, bilateral negotiations
sincerely intended to achieve a full and complete settlement of
Lubicon land rights, bilateral negotiations with Mr. Fulton as an
independent mediator responsible to the Standing Committee.  If the
Premier really wanted to be helpful, we told him, he should
encourage the Federal Government to engage in bilateral negotiations
with the Lubicon people and reinvolve Mr. Fulton as an independent
mediator responsible to the Standing Committee.

Premier Getty said that he was prepared to encourage the Federal
Government to engage in bilateral negotiations with the Lubicon
people but couldn't "sell" Mr. Fulton as an independent mediator
responsible to the Standing Committee.