The following transcript of a letter by Lubicon Chief Bernard Ominayak to the Canadian Prime Minister gives a vivid insight into the difficulties faced by Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. The (neo)colonialistic and racist attitude that pervades the governments, the courts, the business-world, and society in general holds little hope for just and equitable treatment of Native Rights. It will be up to ALL of us to put pressure on the Government of Canada through the person of the Prime Minister to bring this outrageous travesty to a conclusion. As the developments in South Africa show the public, you and me, can help change things. It is not yet to late to lend your support to the Lubicon People. ************************************************************************ Lubicon Lake Indian Nation Little Buffalo Lake, AB 403-629-3945 FAX: 403-629-3939 Mailing address: 3536 - 106 Street Edmonton, AB T6J 1A4 403-436-5652 FAX: 403-437-0719 February 10, 1990 Mr. Brian Mulroney Prime Minister Government of Canada Parliament Buildings Ottawa/Hull, CANADA Dear Sir: On January 18, 1990, I received the attached letter from your Indian Affairs Minister Pierre Cadieux supposedly responding to a letter I'd written to you on December 6th. My December 6th letter was in turn a response to an equally unsatisfactory letter which I'd received from Mr. Cadieux dated November 23rd, regarding yet another letter which I'd written to you on October 28th. In his January 18th letter Mr. Cadieux ignores the settlement proposal made by the Lubicon people in my December 6th letter in favour of simply reiterating a so-called "take-it-or-leave-it" settlement offer tabled by agents of the Federal Government in January of 1989. As we both know the so-called "take-it-or-leave-it" offer tabled by agents of the Federal Government in January of 1989 was not a serious settlement offer at all, but was rather the beginning of a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign intended to try and discredit the Lubicon people. It's clear that Mr. Cadieux's letters of November 23 and January 18th represent no more than a continuation of that same deceitful anti- Lubicon propaganda campaign. In his November 23rd letter Mr. Cadieux presents a distorted and self- serving version of the Federal Government's so-called "take-it-or-leave- it" offer, which he describes as "comprehensive" and "fair". In his January 18th letter Mr. Cadieux claims that the Federal Government's so- called "take-it-or-leave-it" offer is "genuine" and "accurately set out" in his letter of November 23rd. In fact the Federal Government's so- called "take-it-or-leave-it" offer isn't "fair", "comprehensive", "genuine" or "accurately set out" in Mr. Cadieux's letter of November 23rd. For example, Mr. Cadieux claims that the Federal Government's so-called offer includes "$34 million toward the construction of a new community for the Band". The word "toward" was obviously carefully chosen to disguise the fact that a number of basic community facilities like a community hall and vocational training centre aren't covered, of course contradicting Mr. Cadieux's false claim that the so-called offer is "comprehensive". Mr. Cadieux's clever choice of words, however, can't disguise the fact that the 34 million dollars which he says is included in the offer isn't included, but rather consists of money which may or may not exist subject to later confirmation by the Federal Government that it exists, subject to possible changes in Federal Government policy which may or may not be made, and subject to annual Federal Government appropriation of money which in fact the Federal Government may or may not appropriate. Similarly the 10 million dollars which Mr. Cadieux says is included in the Federal Government's so-called offer "for economic purposes" isn't in fact an offer of 10 million dollars, but is rather an offer of the annual interest on a 10 million dollar fund -- perhaps $400,000 to $500,000 a year after inflation. Federal officials propose that the Lubicon people use this money as "seed money" in applying to normal Government programs for financing required to meet not only identified short-falls in basic community facilities valued at about 5 million dollars, but also to develop essential community commercial enterprises valued at about 4 million dollars, as well as to clear and develop reserve land for agricultural purposes valued at about 16 million dollars. No one who knows anything about capitalization of such projects, or about the Federal Government's endless succession of ever- changing and typically disastrous programs, could possibly take this proposal seriously. Mr. Cadieux says that the Federal Government's so-called offer includes "$500,000 for a trust fund to assist Elders wishing to pursue a traditional way of life". In combination with a joint wildlife management and environmental protection agreement which the Lubicon people are negotiating independently with the Provincial Government, Mr. Cadieux says that this fund will provide the Lubicon people "with a real option of pursuing a traditional lifestyle or fully participating in the modern Canadian economy". In fact the objective of this fund is far more limited than Mr. Cadieux suggests, and, despite Mr. Cadieux's unsupported claims to the contrary, there's nothing in the Federal Government's so-called offer which offers any hope that the Lubicon people will ever become successfully involved in the outside economy. What's rather involved with this $500,000 trust fund is again only annual interest -- perhaps $23,000 to $25,000 a year after inflation, which, combined with normal welfare and/or old age pension payments, will hopefully enable our old people to continue pursuing the only way of life they know, although they clearly can no longer support themselves solely by traditional means, due to destruction of our traditional hunting and trapping economy by massive, multi-billion dollar development activity conducted in our unceded traditional territory without our consent and over our protest. Mr. Cadieux says that the Federal Government's so-called offer "represents about $450,000 for every family...non-inclusive of the value of the land offered by Alberta or any oil or gas which may lay under that land". Again Mr. Cadieux is playing fast and loose with the truth. The $450,000 per family calculation results from dividing the 45 million dollar offer supposedly made by approximately 100 families. The 45 million dollar offer is in turn the sum of the 34 million supposedly but in fact not offered, plus annual interest on the 10 million and $500,000 funds -- together perhaps generating about $500,000 annually after inflation. Whatever the sum of these basically indeterminate numbers, the total is clearly not 45 million dollars. Moreover, contrary to the false impression which representatives of the Federal Government deliberately seek to create, none of this money goes to families but is rather intended to build housing, community infrastructure and community facilities which other communities already have, and which are only required by the Lubicon people because our traditional economy and way of life have been destroyed by massive, multi-billion dollar development activity conducted in our unceded traditional territory without our consent and over our protest. As for the land and resources involved in the proposed settlement of Lubicon land rights, which Mr. Cadieux says are being "offered" to the Lubicon people, it should be clear that nobody is "giving" the Lubicon people anything. What's rather being proposed is that the Lubicon people retain for reserve purposes only 95 square miles of our traditional 4,000 square mile area, including only 79 square miles with sub-surface rights, in exchange for which Canadian society will obtain both surface and sub-surface rights to the other 3,900 plus square miles -- from which it has in fact already illegally extracted natural resources reportedly worth over 5 billion dollars. Mr. Cadieux says that "the Federal Government's offer also includes the express right to sue Canada for the additional $167 million in compensation which (the Lubicon people) have represented as owing", a provision which he describes as "extraordinarily fair". What Mr. Cadieux of course really means by this disingenuous statement is that the Federal Government has no intention of honouring the agreement to negotiate compensation made a year ago with your personal Chief-of- Staff, Mr. Derek Burney, and is instead telling us to go to the Canadian courts if we think we have any compensation coming -- an option which Mr. Cadieux knows full well will for all practical purposes defer resolution of this key settlement issue essentially forever. In his January 18th letter Mr. Cadieux denies that Mr. Burney agreed to negotiate compensation, claiming that Mr. Burney only agreed "to place the issue on the agenda for negotiations so that (the Lubicon people) could be fully heard as to the basis of (our) claim". This statement by Mr. Cadieux goes beyond playing with words to flat-out misrepresentation of our agreement with Mr. Burney. In fact items to be negotiated were verbally agreed with Federal negotiator Malone on November 10, 1988, at which time Mr. Malone agreed without any discussion whatsoever that compensation would be one of the items negotiated as part of any settlement package. The list of items agreed with Mr. Malone on November 10th was then confirmed in writing by Mr. Burney in a letter dated November 18, 1988, and again in another letter from Mr. Burney dated November 22, 1988. The first we heard about the Federal Government not negotiating compensation, as previously agreed with Mr. Burney, was during a meeting with Mr. Burney and previous Indian Affairs Minister Bill McKnight on December 21, 1988, when Messrs. Burney and McKnight proposed that instead of negotiating compensation we refer the question of compensation to the Canadian courts -- a proposal which we firmly rejected at that time as unworkable and continue to reject. Mr. Cadieux says that we've neither accepted the Federal Government's so-called offer nor presented "meaningful counterproposals", but rather "plan to further exasperate the process through which the claim can be resolved with threats against Petro-Canada". Again his comments bear no relationship to the truth. In fact our position on the issues has been spelled out at length and in detail both publicly and around the negotiating table, and we were actively making and entertaining proposals and counterproposals when representatives of the Federal Government prematurely terminated the pre-agreed negotiating process -- including agreement in writing with your personal Chief-of-Staff to negotiate the outstanding issue of compensation -- by tabling a surprise "take-it-or-leave-it" settlement offer which they knew in advance wasn't acceptable, and which Canadian Government representatives have been saying ever since won't be changed. Mr. Cadieux "suggests" that we "reconsider" our "decision not to participate in the resumption of talks Premier Getty arranged last September 7 and 8". In fact we proposed those talks to the Premier and were at the negotiating table along with representatives of the Provincial Government on September 7th and 8th -- while representatives of the Federal Government were in hiding at some undisclosed Edmonton hotel and refusing to attend negotiations. Our only condition, then as now, is for Federal representatives to either leave paid professional propagandist Ken Colby out of negotiations, or allow legitimate members of the media to attend -- neither of which Federal representatives were prepared to do. Having thus so badly misrepresented the Federal Government's "take-it- or-leave-it" offer, Mr. Cadieux then proceeds, in his letter of January 18th, to even more outrageously distort the basis and nature of Lubicon land rights. He claims, for example, that our aboriginal land rights were extinguished "through Treaty 8", arguing incongruously that this "position is not inconsistent" with the position taken by the Lubicon people in negotiating the Grimshaw Agreement, that the Grimshaw Agreement "used the (reserve land) formula set out in Treaty 8", that the Grimshaw Agreement "can (therefore) only be construed as an understanding within the ambit of Treaty 8", and that "continued (Lubicon) assertion of aboriginal land rights to land must thus entail a repudiation of the Grimshaw accord". In fact Treaty 8 is a formal document negotiated between the Canadian Federal Government and certain distinct aboriginal societies -- all easily identifiable through signatures on the treaty signature page. The Lubicon people didn't sign Treaty 8 and clearly aren't a party to it. And the Grimshaw Agreement is a completely different and separate political agreement between the Lubicon people and the Alberta Provincial Government, negotiated by people who were of course aware of the reserve land provisions of Treaty 8, but who deliberately and explicitly chose not to use the Treaty 8 formula to determine reserve land size. Proceeding from the false assertion that the Lubicon people are somehow covered by a treaty which we never signed, Mr. Cadieux denies that we have any right to compensation for the valuable resources illegally extracted from our unceded traditional lands, because, he says, our traditional lands were "never used solely by the Lubicon Lake Band to the exclusion of other native groups", and, Mr. Cadieux says, "more importantly, any rights the Band and other Indian people may have had to such lands and their resources have been voluntarily exchanged for the benefits of Treaty 8". In fact none of the aboriginal societies in our immediate area have ever "voluntarily exchanged" their aboriginal lands and resources for the supposed "benefits of Treaty 8", and, while there's some overlap between the traditional Lubicon territory and the traditional territories of the different aboriginal peoples whose traditional territories border our own, there's also a general recognition among us regarding the distinctive and historic territory belonging to each. Mr. Cadieux admits that one of the main "benefits" of Treaty 8 hasn't been "provided" the Lubicon people; namely reserve land, but he implies that the Canadian Government has been providing the Lubicon people with the other benefits of Treaty 8 "since 1899". In fact the first contact between the Lubicon people and the Canadian Government didn't even occur until 1939, most of the Lubicon people have never received any benefits from the Federal Government, and those of us who have received benefits from the Federal Government didn't start receiving anything like normal Federal Government programs and services -- supposedly available under the Canadian Constitution to treaty and non-treaty Indians alike -- until the early 1980's. Mr. Cadieux denies that our traditional economy and way of life has been destroyed by multi-billion dollar gas and oil development activity in our unceded traditional area, conducted without our permission and over our protest. In fact the destruction of our traditional economy and way of life by multi-billion dollar development activity has been independently confirmed by any number of credible observers, including a long-term associate of yours appointed earlier by the Federal Government to conduct an official inquiry into the Lubicon situation -- the Hon. E. Davie Fulton. Mr. Cadieux says that we've "refused to pursue...(our aboriginal rights)...before the (Canadian) courts even though", he says, those rights "were first alleged in 1980". "In the absence of a determination by the (Canadian) courts", he says, the Lubicon "claim to ownership has no validity". As with almost everything else said by Mr. Cadieux, the truth is quite different. We in fact started pursuing recognition of our aboriginal land rights through the Canadian Courts in 1975, not because we accept that the Canadian Courts have jurisdiction over our unceded traditional lands, which we do not, but in an effort to have the Canadian courts make Canadian Government obey Canadian laws. We then actively pursued recognition of our aboriginal land rights through the Canadian Courts until October of 1988, at which point we regretfully withdrew from the Canadian courts having sadly concluded that the Canadian courts offer no realistic hope for resolving the serious jurisdictional questions posed by the existence of unceded aboriginal lands in Canada. Provincial Government claims to jurisdiction over the unceded traditional Lubicon area rely upon the Alberta Natural Resources Transfer Agreement of 1930, which transferred vast tracts of land from Federal to Provincial Government jurisdiction. In other words, the Provincial Government says that it obtained rights to our traditional area from the Federal Government. The Federal Government in turn claims to have obtained jurisdiction over the traditional Lubicon area from its original aboriginal owners through the negotiation of Treaty 8 in 1899. However, while representatives of the Federal Government did negotiate Treaty 8 with other aboriginal peoples in the area surrounding ours, they didn't enter the traditional Lubicon area, and they didn't negotiate treaty with the Lubicon people. Since the signing of Treaty 8 between the Federal Government and other aboriginal peoples in 1899, and the signing of the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Agreement between the Federal and Provincial Governments, both levels of Canadian Government have proceeded as though the Federal Government had negotiated treaty with the Lubicon people, had properly obtained rights to the traditional Lubicon area, had therefore been able to transfer those rights to the Provincial Government, and, consequently, as though the Provincial Government is now in rightful possession of traditional Lubicon lands. The Lubicon people have of course always known better, and have thus always rejected Federal and/or Provincial Government claims to traditional Lubicon land. Until about 12 years ago these jurisdictional questions were basically academic. No one was actively challenging our rightful jurisdiction over our unceded traditional territory, which was isolated and largely inaccessible to the outside world. We had little contact with that outside world, including Canadian Government officials. There were no roads into our area, no phones, no electric power, no television, no newspapers. We built log houses for shelter. We spoke our traditional Cree language. 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 conducted our affairs and lived our lives on our traditional lands pretty much as countless generations of our people before us. In 1971, as part of a plan to open-up northern Alberta for resource exploitation, the Provincial Government started to build an all-weather road into our traditional territory. Faced with an invasion of our unceded traditional territory by outsiders wanting to exploit our natural resources, and lacking experience in dealing with the Canadian Government, we contacted the Indian Association of Alberta and asked for advise and assistance in protecting our unceded lands and resources. The Indian Association contacted the Government of Canada 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 rights to negotiate". Indian Association lawyers therefore advised us to file a "caveat" with the Alberta Land Registration Office, putting potential developers on notice that title to our traditional territory is contested. The "caveat" recommended by Indian Association lawyers 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. We hoped that such notice being posted would worry potential developers, increasing pressure to resolve the outstanding jurisdictional issue 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 Government 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. Provincial Government lawyers asked the courts to postpone the hearing of our "caveat" case pending the outcome of a similar case in the NWT called the Paulette Case. The Paulette Case went against the aboriginal people in the NWT, but the judgment read that the court would have held for the aboriginal people, and ordered the Government to file the "caveat", had the land registration law in the NWT been written the same as the law in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Following the Paulette decision Provincial Government lawyers went back to court and asked for another postponement of the hearing of our "caveat" case, during which time the Provincial Government re-wrote the relevant legislation along the lines of the land registration legislation in the NWT, making the effect of their re-written legislation retroactive to before the time we tried to file our "caveat". Given the re-written, retroactive legislation our "caveat" case was dismissed as no longer having any basis in law. The Provincial Government's new all-weather road into our unceded traditional territory was completed in 1978-79. Shortly thereafter the Provincial Government and dozens of oil companies invaded our unceded traditional territory in force. They made no effort to seek an equitable or 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, and to destroy our will and ability to resist Provincial Government and oil company exploitation of our traditional area. With large-scale development activity proceeding all about us, rapidly destroying our traditional economy and way of life, we returned to the Canadian Courts, this time asking the court to either affirm the existence of our unceded aboriginal land rights, or, if the court found that our aboriginal 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. The 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 legal system -- with procedural arguments designed to preclude judicial determination of the jurisdictional question until we're no longer able to fight for our rights. This time they argued that we were before the wrong court and should instead be suing in the 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 Provincial Government and other offending oil companies in Provincial Court. We therefore pursued parallel legal actions, one against the Federal Government and PetroCanada in Federal Court, and the other 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 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 as a party to our Provincial Court action. Federal Government lawyers opposed adding the Federal Government to our Provincial Court action, arguing that the Federal Government retained no interest in traditional Lubicon lands since transferring that land to Provincial Government jurisdiction 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. As a result, some 14 years after we started seeking redress from the Canadian Courts, 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. While we were still naively seeking redress through the Canadian courts, the Provincial Government and dozens of oil companies were proceeding to destroy everything we owned and valued as a people. Between 1979 and 1982 over 400 oil wells were drilled within a 15 mile radius of our community. The number of moose killed for food dropped from 219 in 1979 to 19 by 1983. Average annual income from trapping during the same period dropped from over $5,000 per trapper to less than $400. Dependence on welfare skyrocketed from under 10% to over 95%. Social and medical problems of all kinds proliferated, including family break- down, still-born and prematurely born babies, suicide and all kinds of unnatural and alcohol-related violent death. Moreover it became increasingly clear 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 Provincial Government to steal our valuable 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, and our people deliberately 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. Our lawyers advised that our parallel legal actions would take 10 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 10 years. It was also obvious that the other side understood this point as well as we did and was counting on it. We therefore commenced a fourth legal proceeding, this time asking the Canadian courts to freeze development activity in our unceded traditional territory until the question of our unceded aboriginal land rights had been settled. Provincial and oil company lawyers responded to our fourth legal action predictably, by arguing procedural points intended to prevent 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 economy 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 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 at stake for Canadian economy as a whole. And, they argued, the court shouldn't even hear the case because, they said, the Lubicon people would never be able to pay back the Province and the oil companies for money lost if an injunction were granted but the Lubicon people 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 is frozen allowing for the 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 Government 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 affidavits of our Elders and a number of non-aboriginal 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 evidence at all on 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, the Provincial Government and the oil companies would lose a lot of money if an injunction were granted. The ex-oil company 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 lawyer 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 generated by 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 which 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 -- including Provincial Government and oil company costs -- of trying to stop the oil companies and Provincial Government 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 judge Mr. McGillivray had been the family lawyer for then Provincial Premier Peter Lougheed. He'd given Mr. Lougheed his first job as a lawyer 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 actually hearing our appeal, but his legal legacy 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 publicly 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 us with 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 are ever able to prove that we retain aboriginal title over our unceded traditional lands. 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 oil company roads and facilities from our unceded traditional area. No one really believes that it will ever be possible to replace all of the trees and animals. No one really believes that it will ever be possible to bring back to life those people who've died as a direct result of development activity destroying our traditional economy and way of life. And even if it were possible to replace and restore and bring back all these people and things, no one really believes that we will ever be able to return to the valued way of life which we enjoyed before our unceded 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 hear our appeal was also made by a panel of three judges. The presiding judge on the three man panel was another ex-oil company lawyer who's since retired from the Bench and been appointed to the Board of a large, Alberta-based petro-chemical conglomerate with significant interests in our unceded traditional area. Thus while it would be true to say that we've not received any semblance of justice from the Canadian courts -- a problem which we share with other aboriginal people across Canada -- it's certainly not true for Mr. Cadieux to say that we've "refused to pursue" recognition of our aboriginal rights through the Canadian courts. Neither is it accurate to suggest, as he also does, that the "validity" of our rights depends upon a determination to that effect by the Canadian courts, whose jurisdiction over our unceded traditional territory is of course itself at issue. Mr. Cadieux threatens to withdraw the Federal Government's so-called "take-it-or-leave-it" offer, saying that "there are many Bands in Canada with outstanding land claims who are prepared to negotiate in good faith with demands within the bounds of reason". He also says that the Lubicon people "ought not expect the Government of Canada to continue to place the land claim of the Lubicon Lake Band at the top of the list of financial priorities for an indefinite period of time". These statements are ridiculous in light of the well known history involved. It's not the "good faith" of the Lubicon people which is in question, but that of the Government of Canada. It's not the Lubicon people who agreed to negotiate compensation during a Federal election campaign, and then promptly broke that agreement once the election was over. It's not the Lubicon people who deliberately broke-down negotiations with a non- negotiable, "take-it-or-leave-it" offer which was known in advance to be unacceptable. It's not the Lubicon people who launched a deliberately deceitful and pre-prepared propaganda campaign under the direction of a paid professional propagandist -- immediately following the break-down in those negotiations. And it's not the Lubicon people who've been demonstrably misrepresenting the positions of both the Lubicon people and the Government of Canada ever since the break-down in negotiations. As for the extent to which the Lubicon people are being reasonable or unreasonable, we're prepared, as we've always been, to negotiate the issues in open meetings attended by the media. Let's let the public judge the "reasonableness of our respective positions. As for Mr. Cadieux's threat to "withdraw" the Federal Government's so- called "take-it-or-leave-it" offer, the Federal Government will of course do as it pleases. We will never voluntarily accept an offer which condemns our people to a life on Government provided welfare in order to survive. If there's no negotiated settlement of our unceded aboriginal land rights, we'll simply retain rightful title to our entire 4,000 square mile traditional area. Under such circumstances we may never once again become economically independent and self-sufficient, but we'll certainly be no worse off than if we accepted the Federal Government's so-called "offer" -- and we'll at least have a clear-cut basis for conducting on-going action against an enemy occupying our unceded traditional territory by virtue of nothing other that superior force. Lastly Mr. Cadieux describes our assertion of jurisdiction over our unceded traditional territory as "an ill-conceived attempt to create some apparent media pressure through media stunts". Somebody should explain to your pitifully ignorant Indian Affairs Minister that exercise of our legitimate unceded jurisdiction is not a "media stunt", but is rather the only alternative to a negotiated settlement of Lubicon land rights. Sincerely, Bernard Ominayak, Chief Lubicon Lake Indian Nation cc: The Hon. D. Getty, Premier, Government of Alberta Leader, Official Opposition, Federal Liberal Party The Hon. A. McLaughlin, Leader, Federal New Democratic Party Ms. Ethel Blondin, M.P., Liberal Aboriginal Affairs Critic Mr. Robert Skelly, M.P. NDP Aboriginal Affairs Critic Mr. R. Martin, M.L.A., Leader, New Democratic Official Opposition Mr. L. Decore, M.L.A., Leader, Alberta Liberals Mr. B. Hawkesworth, M.L.A., ND Aboriginal Affairs Critic Mr. N. Taylor, M.L.A., Liberal Aboriginal Affairs Critic Mr. J. McCarthy, Alberta/Lubicon Negotiator The Hon. E. Davie Fulton Mr. G. Erasmus, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations Mr. Donald Rojas, Vice-President, World Council of Indigenous Peoples Mr. Jim Sinclair, President, Metis National Council President, Native Council of Canada Leaders of Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Associations All Chiefs of Alberta All Signatories to Treaty Alliance of North American Aboriginal Nations ************************************************************************ If you would like to placed on the mailing-list of the Lubicon People just drop me a line and I will gladly forward your name and address to them. For more information contact web:car by e-mail or in writing Aboriginal Rights Support Group Committee Against Racism P.O. Box 3085, Station B Calgary, Alberta T2M 4L6