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" 1000 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 1100 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 4000 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. He therefore made a counter proposal. He proposed that an independent tribunal be established to resolve any disputes that couldn't be resolved through bilateral negotiations between the Lubicon people and the Federal Government. He said that the tribunal would consist of Mr. Fulton, one person appointed by the Federal Government and a third person appointed jointly by Mr. Fulton and the Federal Government's appointee. If we agreed, Premier Getty said, he was prepared to discuss the tribunal proposal with his Provincial Cabinet and then with Prime Minister Mulroney. We agreed to accept Premier Getty's tribunal proposal as an workable alternative to our proposal to reinvolve Mr. Fulton as an independent mediator responsible to the Standing Committee. And we then responded to Premier Getty's initiative with a proposal of our own. While continuing to insist on bilateral negotiations between the Federal Government and the Lubicon people regarding settlement of Lubicon land and membership rights, we proposed to enter into parallel bilateral negotiations with the Provincial Government regarding non-land and membership issues like wildlife management and environmental protection. Informed about Lubicon acceptance of Premier Getty's tribunal proposal, Mr. McKnight acted as though it had nothing to do with the Federal Government. He said that he was "pleased Mr. Getty is prepared to assist in settling the claim because the majority of the claim involves land which belongs to the Province of Alberta". He suggested that any additional reserve land "depends mainly on Provincial willingness to negotiate with the Band on the size of the reserve". And he reiterated Federal Government willingness to negotiate "non-land" issues with the Lubicon people, like roads, housing, a school and a health centre. Our March 7th meeting with Mr. Kitagawa took place in Daishowa's Vancouver offices with people protesting Daishowa's proposed pulp mill demonstrating outside. During that meeting Mr. Kitagawa and his colleagues made clear that they wanted no part of the Lubicon controversy. They said that they'd earlier asked Provincial officials about consulting us and been told that any effort on their part to deal with us directly would "jeopardize delicate negotiations". And they agreed not to proceed in the Lubicon area without our prior agreement. A week and a half later, on March 17th, Lubicon representatives were in Ottawa for meetings and heard that Mr. McKnight was scheduled to appear before the Standing Committee to talk about C-31 revisions to the Indian Act. Having a few hours free between meetings, we decided to attend the Standing Committee meeting and watch Mr. McKnight's performance. Standing Committee agendas are agreed in advance so that members can properly prepare. Those appearing before the Committee are of course expected to confine themselves to pre-agreed agenda items, for the same reason. What Mr. McKnight did, however, was table statements on both C- 31 and Lubicon Lake and then read a nine page prepared statement on Lubicon Lake. Mr. McKnight's March 17th statement before the Standing Committee provided a brief, highly selective, typically self-serving and deliberately deceptive historical overview going back to September of 1987, when Mr. McKnight had appointed Mr. Malone to replace the discredited Mr. Tasse. While seeking to present Federal Government conduct in the best possible light, the McKnight statement also presented a thinly disguised recitation of Federal Government moves to roll back progress toward settlement made under the Fulton Inquiry. It repeated Mr. McKnight's refusal to enter into negotiations with the Lubicon people unless we agreed to full Provincial Government involvement. It again rejected Mr. Fulton as an independent mediator responsible to the Standing Committee. It insisted that we drop our aboriginal rights position and agree to negotiate an outstanding land entitlement under Treaty 8--effectively giving up our basic aboriginal right to determine our own membership. And in a letter from Mr. Malone to Provincial negotiator McCarthy attached to the prepared statement, Mr. McKnight rejected Premier Getty's proposed tribunal, arguing, of all things, that "a Minister of the Crown cannot delegate his statutory duty to a third party". (Mr. McKnight didn't explain how Premier Getty's tribunal proposal was different in this regard than McKnight's own proposals to call a Federal Government inquiry or refer the matter to the courts, either of which, of course, would be easier for the Federal Government to control). Following Mr. McKnight's Standing Committee appearance we checked with Premier Getty. Premier Getty said that he intended to pursue his tribunal proposal with Prime Minister Mulroney in spite of Mr. McKnight's public rejection of it. A couple of days later Mr. McKnight told reporters "that Mr. Getty can take the tribunal proposal up with Mr. Mulroney but that's not going to accomplish anything". Regardless of whether Mr. Mulroney or Mr. Getty get involved, he said, the Federal Government will continue to negotiate with Alberta to reach a settlement. "If we cannot agree with Alberta", he said, "then maybe we'll have to go to the courts to settle". On March 30th Premier Getty told us that he'd received a proposed settlement agreement from Mr. McKnight, negotiated between Federal and Provincial Government negotiators without our involvement, which Mr. McKnight wanted the Province to sign. Premier Getty said that the proposed settlement agreement provided 45 square miles based on a recognized Lubicon population of 225 people. He asked that we study the proposed settlement agreement and react to it. We told Premier Getty that the proposed settlement agreement would split the Lubicon people and tear Lubicon families asunder, something which we'd never accept. We therefore agreed with Premier Getty to continue working toward establishment of the independent tribunal which he'd earlier proposed, excepting only that he now advised us that we'd have to drop our aboriginal rights legal action if we wanted the decisions of the proposed tribunal to be binding, or, alternatively, to settle for a tribunal which was only advisory. We told Premier Getty that we weren't prepared to drop our aboriginal rights legal action but were prepared to work with a tribunal which was only advisory. Initially Mr. McKnight gave reporters the impression that the Federal Government would also be prepared to work with an advisory tribunal, triggering news stories that he'd agreed. The more Mr. McKnight talked, however, the more clear it became that he'd not agreed at all, but was rather only seeking to confuse the issue and thereby avoid public responsibility for effectively blocking commencement of negotiations. Confused reporters struggled to make sense out of Mr. McKnight's convoluted mumbo jumbo until a spokesman for Mr. McKnight made clear that Mr. McKnight still rejected the proposed Getty tribunal, and that he was still waiting for a response from the Provincial Government regarding the request for reserve land publicly announced by Mr. Malone on February 4th. On May 17, 1988, Mr. McKnight announced that the Federal Government had initiated legal action asking the Provincial Court of Queen's Bench to impose a settlement of Lubicon land rights upon both the Lubicon people and the Alberta Provincial Government. The action asked the Court to "declare" the following four things: 1.) that the Lubicon people have an outstanding land entitlement under Treaty 8 (as distinct from unceded aboriginal land rights); 2.) that the size of the outstanding treaty land entitlement be determined by a historically unique membership formula unilaterally devised by Mr. McKnight; 3.) that a reserve of the size unilaterally determined by Mr. McKnight using his historically unique membership formula be established; 4.) that the Alberta Provincial Government is in breach of the 1930 land transfer agreement by refusing to support Mr. McKnight's unilateral determination of Lubicon land rights. The next day, May 18th, Federal Liberal Party Indian Affairs Critic Keith Penner asked Mr. McKnight why Mr. McKnight had decided to refer the Lubicon situation to the courts, instead of seeking a negotiated settlement. Mr. McKnight responded by repeating earlier discredited claims that we'd insisted upon "unacceptable conditions", and by saying that the Alberta Provincial Government had refused to transfer reserve land in an amount unilaterally determined by Mr. McKnight. Mr. Penner then specifically asked Mr. McKnight why Mr. McKnight had not agreed to negotiate under the advisory tribunal proposed by Premier Getty and accepted by the Lubicon people. With his usual clarity of thought and speech, Mr. McKnight replied: "It would seem strange that Alberta would need a tribunal to assign land which is already the property of Alberta to the Lubicon Lake people. It would seem strange that Chief Ominayak would not agree to a binding decision of the tribunal if he wished the tribunal to work. It also seems strange that I have not had any contact with the Government of Alberta in any pro forma way that would allow me to understand the tribunal put forward. "I find the actions we have taken are consistent with Canada's commitment and obligations to fulfil entitlement to the Lubicon Lake Band to the best of our ability. The only avenue left to Canada, after attempting to negotiate since 1984 on a claim which has been outstanding since 1940, was to ask the court for assistance in this matter". (The reference to 1984 presumably pertained to the appointment of Mr. Fulton, whose efforts were of course prematurely terminated by the Federal Government when Federal officials didn't like his settlement recommendations.) On June 1, 1988, Provincial New Democrat Indian Affairs Critic Bob Hawkesworth asked Alberta Premier Don Getty if the Premier had discussed his advisory tribunal proposal with Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, or if the Premier was "content to allow (Mr. McKnight) to trash negotiations." Premier Getty responded by saying that he'd "discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, (that Provincial Attorney General and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Horsman) is discussing the matter with the Federal Government's Ministers, and (that) there are also negotiators representing the Federal Government and the Provincial Government who are having discussions as well". Contacted by reporters about Premier Getty's remarks, Mr. McKnight denied that Provincial officials had ever discussed the proposed advisory tribunal with anyone from the Federal Government. He said, "The Premier had discussions with Chief Ominayak and the supposed mediation tribunal was never communicated to me." He said that Provincial Attorney General and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Horsman "has never imparted to me what took place at the meetings (between Premier Getty and Chief Ominayak) or how the tribunal would have been established". He said, "I have not received any information on the make-up of the tribunal, its actions, or its supposed goals except from what I have seen in the media". But, he said, judging from what he'd seen in the media, he didn't think that the proposed "mediation tribunal" would work anyway, since, he said, "independent mediation usually occurs when the law is clear, which isn't the case in the Lubicon situation". For the next few days opposition members and the media focused on the contradictory remarks made by Premier Getty and Mr. McKnight without resolving the question of who was lying. However there were several pretty good reasons for holding Mr. McKnight responsible for the impasse. First of all, on the record, Mr. McKnight had publicly rejected a possibly workable framework for negotiations without knowing anything about it--hardly an acceptable position for a supposedly responsible Minister of Government. Second responsibility for settling Lubicon land rights clearly rests squarely with Mr. McKnight and the Federal Government, not with Premier Getty and the Provincial Government. And third, given Mr. McKnight's oft- repeated desire to negotiate rather than litigate Lubicon land rights, one might at least expect him to inquire about the details of a proposal for negotiations found acceptable by the two parties whom Mr. McKnight was suing, because, supposedly, negotiations with these two parties had proven impossible. After almost a decade of unrestrained development activity in our traditional destroying nearly everything we owned and valued as a people, and with absolutely no prospects for ever achieving recognition of our unextinguished aboriginal land rights through the Canadian Courts or Canadian political process, in early August, 1988, we made clear our firm intention to enforce our jurisdiction over our traditional lands. We made clear that it was not a question of "taking the law into our own hands" or "seizing control", but rather of enforcing sovereignty which we'd never relinquished. As of October 15, 1988, we said, anyone wishing to operate in our traditional territory would be expected to obtain appropriate authorization from us and obey our laws. On August 19, 1988, we received a letter from Mr. McKnight expressing concern about both pending Lubicon assertion of jurisdiction and also "the time it may now take a court to decide". As an alternative to legal action and Lubicon assertion of jurisdiction, he proposed suspension of the Federal Government's legal action and the establishment of "a forum for addressing the Band's grievances"--including the appointment of a mutually acceptable independent mediator. We wrote back a couple of days later, indicating that we were "prepared to talk...just as long as such talks are sincerely intended to achieve a fair and equitable settlement, instead of just being another empty propaganda exercise designed to create the illusion of Federal Government reasonableness going into a Federal election and/or confrontation on the ground". On August 24th lawyers for both sides discussed establishment of Mr. McKnight's "forum for addressing the Band's grievances". Mr. Malone said that Mr. McKnight had one candidate to suggest for mediator, that of a former Supreme Court Judge known for both fairness and independence. Submission of this man's name by Mr. McKnight gave us hope that the Federal Government might finally be interested in negotiating a fair and equitable settlement, since such a person would be too dangerous a mediator for the Federal Government if the Federal Government wasn't sincere about negotiating a fair and equitable settlement. After we'd officially accepted this man as an independent mediator, however, Mr. Malone withdrew his name as a candidate for mediator, supposedly because of "some negative vibrations from higher up". During the next few weeks other similarly credible candidates for the independent mediator role were also submitted by the Federal Government, only to be withdrawn AFTER being accepted by the Lubicon people-- suggesting, of course, that the Federal Government wasn't serious about submitting these names in the first place. Rather it seems clear in retrospect that these names were only submitted to create the illusion of Federal Government seriousness about negotiations. If the Lubicon people rejected such obviously well qualified candidates, Mr. McKnight could charge, as he has in the past, that we weren't interested in a negotiated settlement but only confrontation for confrontation's sake. On the other hand, if we accepted such obviously well qualified candidates, their names always could be quietly withdrawn by Federal officials without giving specific reasons, which was of course exactly what was happening. The obvious objective of all of this non-productive fooling around was clearly to create the false impression that the Federal Government was doing everything possible to reach a negotiated settlement, and that the Lubicon people were therefore not justified in asserting jurisdiction over our traditional lands during the Federal election. For the next month key Lubicon personnel spent most of their time researching mediator candidates--at the expense of essential work required to support assertion of jurisdiction. Ken Colby, a professional propagandist hired by the Federal Government on contract to be their "official Lubicon spokesman", told the media that the Federal Government and the Lubicon people had simply been unable to agree on a mediator, that Lubicon candidates had been unacceptable to the Federal Government, but that Federal candidates had also been unacceptable to the Lubicon people. The truth was a little more sinister. While the Federal Government had rejected all of the highly qualified candidates put forward by the Lubicon people, we had in fact accepted four candidates put forward by the Federal Government, only to have the Federal Government then withdraw three of these four candidates and advise us that the fourth was unfortunately unavailable. On September 22, 1988, we moved to bring this interminable mediator selection process to an end with a short list of four candidates, two of whom had originally been submitted by the Federal Government, two of whom had originally been submitted by the Lubicon people. Three of the four candidates on our short list were western Canadians. Two were former Presidents of the Canadian Bar Association. One was Dean of a western Canadian law school. All had indicated immediate availability. If one of these highly qualified candidates wasn't acceptable to the Canadian Government, we figured that the Canadian Government wasn't serious about negotiations but only wanted to use talk of negotiations to try and politically defuse the Lubicon issue--especially during the Federal election. Federal negotiator Malone reacted to our short list by proposing to add a couple of additional names, one of whom we agreed to add but the Federal Government later withdrew due to reported unavailability. On September 27th Mr. Malone proposed the addition of yet another candidate for independent mediator to the Lubicon short list. We refused to consider the addition of any more names, telling Mr. Malone that the whole idea of the Lubicon short list was to bring the mediator selection process to an end. On September 28th Mr. Malone advised that he still hadn't received a requested Provincial Government reaction to the Lubicon short list. On October 4th professional Federal Government propagandist Colby accused the Provincial Government of "dragging it's heels in choosing a mediator from the Lubicon short list". On October 5th newly appointed Provincial Attorney General Ken Rostad denied that the Provincial Government was dragging it's heels in choosing a mediator. He said that the Provincial Government had in fact agreed to "several names" acceptable to the Lubicon people, and that all the Federal Government had to do was pick one of them. On October 6th we were scheduled to appear before the Alberta Court of Appeal to continue the eight year long debate over whether any court in Canada has jurisdiction over the Federal Government with regard to the question of aboriginal land rights within Provincial Government borders, and, therefore, whether any court in Canada was even prepared to hear an action against the Federal Government regarding a matter of exclusive Federal Government responsibility under the Canadian Constitution. Instead of continuing this obviously endless and futile legal farce, however, we rather withdrew from all legal actions before Canadian Courts, making clear that we didn't recognize the jurisdiction of the Canadian Courts to make decisions regarding Lubicon land in any case, making clear that our only purpose in appearing before Canadian Courts had been to try and make Canadian Government obey Canadian law, and making clear also that we now saw no alternative but to enforce our jurisdiction over our traditional territory, effective October 15th, and to then defend our vital interests on the ground as best we could. Mr. McKnight responded by saying that our withdrawal from the Canadian Court and assertion of jurisdiction "precludes any opportunity for negotiations or discussion". He said that the Government of Canada "cannot negotiate because of the pre-conditions that (the Lubicons) are now a sovereign nation". Typically Mr. McKnight again had it backwards. We weren't insisting that the Government of Canada recognize our sovereign status as a prerequisite to talks. Rather Mr. McKnight was insisting that we cede our sovereign status as a prerequisite to talks. We were, and always had been, prepared to negotiate without either side ceding anything in advance. Mr. McKnight didn't spell out what alternative he saw to negotiations or discussion. On October 7th Mr. McKnight told a nation-wide television audience, "At noon today, we had set a deadline that the three parties would attempt to agree on a mediator from the four names put forward by the Lubicon people". "The action (the Lubicon people) took yesterday--declaring themselves a sovereign nation--made that progress meaningless". To say that Mr. McKnight lied to the whole country when he made these remarks may not be quite right--perhaps he'd agreed to such a deadline with Provincial officials or somebody else--but he certainly wasn't talking about any "deadline" which Federal officials had ever discussed with us. The last information we'd received from the Federal Government about the Lubicon short list was on September 28th, when Mr. Malone told us that the Federal Government was still waiting for a reaction to our short list from the Provincial Government. "That's the best I can do", Mr. Malone told us at that time. Asked for his views of the looming confrontation, Mr. Fulton declined to "pass judgment" on our assertion of jurisdiction. He said, "They've been driven to extremes". He said, "I fully sympathize with the position in which they find themselves". He said, "I hope that (the blockade) will (make) the Department of Indian Affairs realize that the time for position-taking without real negotiations is over". By October 11th supporters and representatives of the media from across the country and Europe had begun arriving in our area, the RCMP had issued a statement urging the "general public to avoid the (Lubicon) area unless on an absolute need basis", and the oil companies began making arrangements to shut down their operations and vacate the area rather than recognize our jurisdiction. On October 12th Premier Getty phoned and asked for a meeting to discuss planned assertion of jurisdiction. We then met with Premier Getty the morning of October 13th and agreed to immediately commence negotiations in the hope that it would be possible to reach an agreement which could then be presented to the Federal Government for approval. As talks were about to start Premier Getty warned that negotiations would cease "if Alberta laws are broken". In reply we told the Premier that Lubicon assertion of jurisdiction would proceed as planned at 1 p.m. on October 15th unless "substantial progress towards resolution of our aboriginal land rights is achieved". Negotiations with the Province broke-down late in the evening on October 14th over the amount of reserve lands which we would be able to retain for reserve purposes. The oil companies shut down their operations and vacated our traditional area by noon the following day. On Saturday, October 15th at 1 pm we established "passport control points" at all main points of entry into our unceded traditional territory and began enforcing our jurisdiction. On October 17th Premier Getty told reporters that we might have been able to agree on reserve land if negotiations had continued. However, he said, he was not prepared to talk while our "passport control points" were in operation. "Take down the barricades", he said, "there's no discussions while the barricades are up". On October 18th we offered to suspend the operation of our "passport control points" while our respective negotiators tried once more to achieve agreement on reserve land size. We said, "If the Premier is serious about an amount of reserve land at least equal to that retained by the aboriginal people in the surrounding area who signed treaty, as determined by the same historic criteria, then we're prepared to temporarily suspend the operation of our passport control points while we talk". "However if talks collapse", we said, "the barricades will immediately go back up". Premier Getty rejected our offer to temporarily suspend the operation of our "passport control points", repeating his demand that we "remove the roadblocks". He said, "I want to make it clear that I'm not quibbling on this issue". On October 19th Federal Justice Department lawyer Ivan Whitehall announced his intention to ask our old friend Judge Moore to impose a settlement upon us without our attendance in court. The following day Judge Moore agreed to proceed as Mr. Whitehall suggested, indicating that he'd ensure our interests were protected by appointing "a friend of the court" to represent us. Judge Moore was the same man who'd earlier protected our interests by appointing an ex-oil company head lawyer to hear our application for an emergency injunction to freeze development activity in our traditional area pending determination of our aboriginal land rights. He's the same Judge who'd earlier protected our interests by refusing to add the Federal Government to our Provincial court action with the result that at the time we asserted jurisdiction there wasn't a single court in Canada prepared to even hear an action against the Federal Government regarding a matter of exclusive Federal Government responsibility under the Canadian Constitution. And, as we were later to learn, Judge Moore was the same Judge who a day earlier had looked after our interests by granting the Provincial Government an "ex parte" injunction to dismantle our passport control points without even advising us that such an injunction was being sought. Early in the morning of October 20th scores of heavily armed RCMP backed by helicopters and attack dogs mounted a coordinated assault on our four passport control points, arresting 27 of our people and supporters, including a 14 year old boy, a 71 year old grandmother, two Quaker supporters, two west German supporters, our lawyer and one of our key advisors. Critical reaction to the arrests was immediate. Telegrams, cheques, telephone calls and people poured in from around the world. Aboriginal groups from across the country vowed to replace everyone arrested at Lubicon check points for as long as necessary. The World Council of Churches donated $5000 to show support and help cover costs. A couple of hundred protesters set up camp in front of the Provincial Legislature. Church, labour and aboriginal leaders issued statements of support. The Grand Council of the Cree of Quebec sent an urgent telegram to the Secretary General of the United Nations charging "gross violations of our human rights" and asking for an UN investigation.