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 it's 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 $5000 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".