(Originally underlined parts have been converted to capital letters by myself. R.L.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lubicon Lake Indian Nation Little Buffalo Lake, Alberta Phone: 403-629-3945 Fax: 403-629-3939 Mailing address: 3536 - 106 Street Edmonton, Alberta T6J 1A4 Phone: 403-436-5652 Fax: 403-437-0719 August 16, 1994 Enclosed for your information is an English language translation of a report sent to the Austrian Foreign Affairs Ministry by the Austrian Ambassador to Canada. Also enclosed for your information is a copy of the Austrian Ambassador's report to the Austrian Foreign Affairs Ministry in the original German as well as a couple of English language documents provided to the Austrian Ambassador by senior officials of the Alberta Provincial government. The enclosed report by the Austrian Ambassador to Canada pertains to a "briefing" on the Lubicon situation which the Austrian Ambassador to Canada received recently from senior Alberta government officials Gary Pocock, Ken Boutillier and John Kristensen. Pocock is Assistant Deputy Minister of Planning and Coordination for the Provincial Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs (FIGA) and reports to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein. Boutillier is Executive Director of Indian Land Claims for the Provincial Department of Family and Social Planning and technically reports to Family and Social Services Minister Mike Cardinal (although Boutillier was around long before Cardinal arrived on the scene and there's a real question about who controls whom). Kristensen is Director of the Federal/Provincial Relations Division of the Provincial Department of Family and Social Services and technically also reports to Mike Cardinal (although Kristensen also pre-dates Cardinal and there's a question about who controls whom in his case as well). The information provided to the Austrian Ambassador by Pocock, Boutillier and Kristensen is predictably replete with self-serving distortions, misrepresentations, fabrications and outright lies. More surprising than the lies is the fact that the senior Provincial officials telling the lies are identified by name in the report of the Austrian Ambassador. Usually senior Alberta Provincial officials are more careful about having their names associated with the overt lies they tell. Senior Provincial Government strategist Boutillier in particular is usually more careful about having his name associated with bald-faced lies. Normally Boutillier seeks to fashion deliberately calculated false impressions rather than lying outright complete with quotable quotes. (Presumably this time the Boutillier bunch didn't expect the lies they told the Austrian Ambassador to be recorded and a copy made available to the Lubicons by concerned members of the Austrian National Council.) Distressed by a general resolution passed unanimously earlier this year by the Austrian National Council urging the Canadian Government to negotiate a "mutually satisfactory" settlement of Lubicon land rights, Boutillier and his colleagues dramatically told the Austrian Ambassador that "the (Austrian) resolution... could have easily led to a disturbance of bilateral relationships (between Canada and Austria)". They went on to charge that the Austrian resolution "was not based on facts...and was passed without consulting the Canadian Government". Pretty serious sounding stuff but demonstrably untrue -- as is so often the case with things claimed by the Boutillier bunch. There was in fact a major Canadian Government lobbying effort conducted out of the Canadian Embassy in Vienna designed to defeat ANY resolution by the Austrian National Council supporting respect for the aboriginal land rights of the Lubicon people -- a lobbying effort which included deliberately deceitful anti-Lubicon propaganda materials in German prepared by the same senior Provincial officials now claiming falsely that the Canadian Government wasn't consulted. The Canadian government propaganda materials used in this lobbying effort, including that concocted by these same senior Provincial officials, was in fact considered at length by members of the Austrian National Council and resulted in a number of revisions to the text of the resolution but did not convince the Austrian Parliamentarians to kill the resolution altogether -- killing the resolution altogether of course being the fervently, feverishly sought objective of both levels of Canadian Government. Countered in their indignant harangue about the Austrian resolution by an Austrian Ambassador who knew better and told them so, the senior Provincial officials then proceeded to provide the Austrian Ambassador with the type of carefully crafted disinformation so characteristic of Boutillier; namely, cleverly misrepresented "facts" which don't attack the Lubicons head-on but which are instead intended to create false impressions leading to the erroneous conclusion that the Lubicon people are completely unreasonable and therefore -- as ludicrous as it would seem if one were to say it outright -- that it's the rich and powerful Alberta Provincial government which is long-suffering rather than the embattled and endangered Lubicons. Boutillier and Co. told the Austrian Ambassador that "there are 44 bands of native peoples in Alberta" and that "ten bands recently finished their land claim negotiations with the government". Actually there are at least 47 recognized Bands in Alberta and there've been seven settlements -- five of which were relatively minor outstanding treaty land entitlement settlements involving Bands that signed treaty at the turn of the century and already have established reserves but where a small number of people had not been taken into account for purposes of calculating reserve land size -- the other two of which were settlements purely on government-dictated terms which were hurriedly pushed through by both levels of Canadian government at key points in the Lubicon struggle in order to try and counter negative publicity generated by such things as the Lubicon boycott of the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics. Illustrating classic Boutillier disinformation technique Boutillier and Co. slightly shrink the number of Bands in Alberta and slightly exaggerate the number of settlements so as to contribute to the false impression they are seeking to create that the vast majority of Indian societies in Alberta are negotiating "mutually satisfactory" settlements with the government. Fooling around with the truth in this way is characteristic of Boutillier -- shading things just enough to create self-serving impressions but not so much as to precipitate a big debate over the accuracy of the numbers or to seriously jeopardize the credibility of the source of those numbers. (In fact the Alberta Provincial Government is well known by anybody who follows the struggle for recognition of aboriginal rights in Canada as being exceedingly antagonistic to recognition of aboriginal rights and as a major impediment to achieving respect for aboriginal rights both in Alberta and across the country.) Underscoring the false impression that everybody but the Lubicons is doing just fine -- which of course in turn suggests that lack of settlement is due to some problem with the Lubicons rather than being the fault of the government -- Messrs. Pocock, Boutillier and Kristensen say sweetly that "the case of the Lubicons is a special one". They then go on to make a series of carefully concocted statements of supposed "fact" intended to gently lead the uninitiated to certain fraudulent conclusions about the nature of the problem with the Lubicons supposedly preventing a settlement of Lubicon land rights. Pocock, Boutillier and Kristensen told the Austrian Ambassador as though it were incontrovertible fact that "the case of the Lubicon Cree Indians...concerns 250 to 300 persons". They then told him that the Lubicons are demanding "about $200 million...compensation in cash". Dividing the $200 million by 300 people they say that the Lubicons are therefore demanding $600,000 per person or "about $3 million per family". (Just in case anybody misses the point of how unreasonable the Lubicons are supposedly being Boutillier and Co. underscore this ridiculous and demonstrably false notion that the Lubicons are demanding $3 million per family by telling the Austrian Ambassador "for the government this looks like a lottery win" -- the calculated image here of course being that the Lubicons are seeking some kind of obscenely huge, unearned, undeserved financial windfall rather than merely seeking the return of a tiny fraction of an estimated $7 billion in resources illegally expropriated from unceded Lubicon territory over the last 14 years by multi-national resource exploitation companies and their cronies in the Alberta Provincial government.) In fact all of this business about 250 people demanding $3 million per family is just simply baloney -- fabricated stuff artfully contrived by Boutillier and Co. to give people the false impression that the Lubicons are being wildly unreasonable and unrealistic. While it is true that both levels of Canadian Government have been aggressively trying for some time to reduce the Lubicon population to an apparent target of between 250 and 300 people -- which seems to be the number that they've settled on as justifying their breaking the Grimshaw (reserve land) Accord (in spite of the fact that the Grimshaw Accord was deliberately not based on population numbers) -- there's no clear evidence that they've succeeded. There are just frequent, typically unattributed claims on their part that there are only 250 to 300 Lubicons left -- the others supposedly having been siphoned off to join one or other of the two new Bands created by the Federal Government (with the advice and assistance of the Boutillier bunch) expressly to siphon off Lubicon members. (In addition to the lack of evidence to support claims by the Boutillier bunch that there are only 250 to 300 Lubicons left both levels of Canadian government have made demonstrably false claims about the number of Lubicons on a number of previous occasions -- casting into serious question any such claims they now make.) Best estimates are that the various well documented efforts of Canadian government to disassemble the Lubicon society have reduced the Lubicon population from a little over 500 in December of 1988 to probably a little over 400 currently -- the known Lubicon population having grown some since December of 1988 and the majority of those belonging to the newly created Woodland and Loon River Bands never having been on the Lubicon membership list in the first place. Nobody knows for sure exactly what the numbers are or might be tomorrow because membership numbers are constantly in flux depending upon births, deaths, things like domestic disputes (some of which are known to have been fomented by Federal and Provincial officials) and the current state of play politically; i.e. whether or not a Loon settlement is imminent or Woodland negotiations will be re-opened (neither of which appears to be in the cards at the moment). Most informed observers believe that the Lubicon population will likely again settle at about 500 people if well-documented efforts by both levels of Canadian government to artificially reduce the Lubicon population cease. (It is clear, however, that there will have to be agreement on some population number for productive negotiations to proceed on such population-related items as housing and related infrastructure. The Lubicons have consequently proposed to fix the population number for the purpose of settlement negotiations at the last point when there was general agreement on membership numbers; namely 477 at the time of the Grimshaw Accord in October of 1988 before both levels of Canadian Government deliberately undertook to subvert Lubicon membership numbers -- and to then build into a settlement agreement provision to make appropriate adjustments over time in things like the number of required housing units, or, more precisely, to take another look at population numbers perhaps three years into reserve construction and to make a decision at that time as to whether more or fewer housing units will be needed to meet the requirements of a more settled population presumably no longer subject to wholly inappropriate government pressures and enticements to jump from Band list to Band list.) The claim by Boutillier and Co. that the Lubicons are demanding "approximately $200 million...compensation in cash...(or)...about $3 million per family" is also deliberately bogus. The Lubicon cash compensation demand is $100 million in 1988 dollars -- or about 1.5% of the value of the estimated $7 billion in resources which has been illegally expropriated from the unceded Lubicon territories in the last 14 years by the Provincial government working in concert with dozens of multi-national resource exploitation companies. (In addition to cash compensation in the amount of $100 million in 1988 dollars the Lubicons are seeking another $70 million (in 1988 dollars) to construct a hopefully self-sufficient Lubicon reserve; i.e., houses, roads, water, sewer, Band office, community hall, clearing of reserve lands for agricultural purposes, development of a cow/calf herd, etc. The cost of constructing a hopefully self-sufficient Lubicon reserve has been verified by a professional cost assessor jointly appointed specifically for that purpose by the Lubicons and the Federal government who concluded that Lubicon reserve construction cost estimates of $70 million in 1988 dollars are low.) Regarding the deliberately deceitful inference that the Lubicons will all become fabulously lucky lottery winner type millionaires at the Alberta taxpayers' expense if they receive the "compensation in cash" they are seeking, Boutillier and Co. know that the involved money doesn't come from tax revenues but rather represents a tiny fraction of the value of the resources which have been illegally expropriated from unceded Lubicon lands and that NO Lubicon settlement monies will be distributed to Lubicon individuals or families. The entire $70 million is budgeted to try and rebuild the physical infrastructure and economy of a society which has been systematically destroyed and/or rendered obsolete by multi-billion dollar resource exploitation activity directed by the Alberta Provincial government. And the entire $100 million in cash compensation being sought by the Lubicons is for the specific purpose of creating an interest generating fund producing independent revenues in perpetuity for the Lubicon society to help the Lubicon people meet the long-term, undoubtedly intergenerational costs involved in trying to make the difficult and expensive transition from a once viable traditional society with an economy based on abundant wild plants and animals previously available in their 4,000 square mile traditional territory to a hopefully viable self-sufficient new society with a mixed economy based largely on domestic plants and animals raised on a 95 square mile Indian reserve. Needless to say Boutillier and Co. have little interest in solving the settlement problems which they've deliberately created but are rather seeking by hook or crook to represent Lubicon population numbers as low as possible and Lubicon settlement numbers as high as possible in order to enable them to then conjure up the ridiculous per capita and per family settlement numbers which they falsely then put forward as incontrovertible fact in contexts such as the disgraceful, deliberately deceitful briefing which they gave the Austrian Ambassador; i.e., $600,000 per person and $3 million per family. Boutillier and Co. told the Austrian Ambassador that "the Lubicon Cree benefit from an excellent Chicago lawyer who is also motivated by self- interest...(earning an)...income from the land claim negotiations estimated at $200,000 to $250,000 per year". There's an enlightening image for you -- an "excellent Chicago lawyer" making $200,000 to $250,000 per year "from the land claim negotiations". What could be worse? It's no wonder that there's no settlement despite all of the supposed reasonableness of the Alberta Provincial Government. This damn "Chicago lawyer" is making a quarter of a million dollars a year keeping the Lubicons in penury and on welfare. The only problem with this again indirect, inferred, suggested impressionistic explanation of why there's no settlement -- other of course than there are no "land claim" negotiations and the Lubicons don't have $250,000 a year to pay anybody -- is that the Lubicons don't have and never have had a "Chicago lawyer". They have an advisor who was born in Chicago but who has lived in Alberta for 20 years and who won't get paid UNLESS there's a settlement. (In this context it's notable that the October 1989 edition of a magazine called the "Canadian Lawyer" reported that the Federal government paid Calgary lawyer Brian Malone more than $442,000 for the period from April of 1988 to March of 1989 supposedly to represent the Federal Government in negotiations with the Lubicons which in fact occurred primarily during a brief 6 week period in December of 1988 and the first part of January 1989. The same article reported that the Federal government also paid the Calgary law firm which helped them organize the new Woodland Cree Band over $410,000 for the same period. In addition the Provincial government has had a third law firm on the payroll undoubtedly making at least as much since the mid-1970s helping them devise such ingenious legal strategies to subvert Lubicon legal rights as the notorious retroactive caveat legislation and deliberately destroying the traditional Lubicon economy so that the Lubicon people can no longer claim that they live a traditional way of life on their traditional lands. Thus there is little question that there are lawyers who are benefitting financially from a lack of settlement but they are not Lubicon lawyers, who, like the Lubicon advisor from Edmonton, have in fact worked for years largely on the cuff and who stand little chance of ever being paid UNLESS there's a settlement.) Boutillier and Co. of course know very well that the advisor from Edmonton who won't get paid unless there's a settlement isn't a "excellent Chicago lawyer" making an "estimated $200,000 to $250,000 per year...from the (non-existent) land claim negotiations". All of that is just purely and simply a carefully calculated pack of lies told by paid professional liars to create a deliberately fraudulent impression about why there's no settlement for an audience whom they presume doesn't know any better -- such as the Austrian Ambassador to Canada. On the question of the purpose and role of treaty-making Boutillier and Co. put forward perhaps their most illuminating disinformation -- again as though it were indisputable fact instead of self-serving political propaganda. They say that "treaty negotiations are not suited to solve the basic social and cultural policy problems of native people". They suggest that the need is to "bridge the gap between the traditions of the concerned peoples and the social, economic and technological developments in Canada at the beginning of the 21st century". They imply that the real issue is "how the cultural values and social traditions of native people may become (useful or utilized) by Canadian society". And they conclude that "the chosen policy of the federal government of increased autonomy and self-administration (as distinct from self-government) is...certainly a step in the right direction". Such views are a step in the right direction only if one disregards the facts and complexities of history and seeks to return to a simplistic, jingoistic, racist, colonialistic 19th century "white man's burden" view of aboriginal people and aboriginal land rights. In fact the purpose of the treaties historically is to define the terms of co-existence between different societies. As such there is no more suitable means available for resolving the "social and cultural policy problems" caused by the contact of different societies. The notion that one such society should simply conform to the "social, economic and technological developments" of the other is insufferably ethnocentric, offensive and unacceptable -- especially when it involves a more powerful society simply presuming to seize the valuable lands and resources of a less powerful society and then relegating the less powerful society to a role of enforced dependence and subservience. (Simply seizing valuable aboriginal lands and resources may have historically been the hidden agenda of the British or Canadian Crown, and earlier colonial exploiters of other peoples' lands and resources may have also believed that relegating aboriginal people to a role of enforced dependence and subservience is the most efficacious way to try and ensure that the people from whom the valuable lands and resources are being stolen are never in a position to effectively fight back, but simply seizing valuable aboriginal lands and resources was never the openly stated purpose of the British or Canadian Crown in negotiating treaties with indigenous people in Canada -- many of whom were quite able to militarily defend themselves against an overt military invasion of their traditional lands at the time most of those treaties were negotiated. Had it been the openly stated purpose of the British or Canadian Crown to simply seize aboriginal lands and resources in that part of North America now called Canada other aboriginal societies would have undoubtedly been as recalcitrant to go along with their own planned extinction as the Lubicons are being now; it's extremely unlikely that there'd be any treaties with indigenous societies in Canada and the history of this part of North America would be quite different.) Similarly ethnocentric and offensive is the notion of "self- administration" (as distinct from self-government). "Self- administration" clearly implies one society "administering" the policies devised by another society -- something which simply doesn't happen voluntarily by treaty since by definition it would mean the end of the distinct existence of the society agreeing to administer the policies devised by another society. Certainly none of the treaties with indigenous people in Canada so provide. (In fact the right for the involved parties to remain self-governing is either explicit or implied in earlier treaties between aboriginal societies and the British or Canadian Crown.) Contrary to the historically inaccurate, self-serving notion of the purpose and role of treaty-making espoused by the Boutillier bunch, what the Lubicons seek through treaty negotiations is rather consistent with what aboriginal people in Canada have traditionally sought. They seek self-sufficient co-existence in a world which is rapidly changing through no actions of their own. And in exchange for the vast lands and valuable resources which they're being asked to share with pushy, powerful outsiders they seek the means minimally necessary for that self- sufficient co-existence. Specifically the Lubicons seek the return of a tiny fraction of the value of the resources which have been illegally extracted from unceded Lubicon territory so that they can try to rebuild their shattered economy and way of life along different lines. They seek recognition of their right to conduct their own affairs on a tiny fraction of their once vast traditional lands. Being prepared to cede multi-billion dollar sub- surface resources so coveted by powerful non-aboriginal outsiders they seek retention of the limited rights of wildlife management and environmental protection in their traditional territory in order to try and preserve as much of their traditional economy and way of life as possible. And in order to facilitate the complicated, difficult and expensive transition from a once viable traditional hunting and trapping economy to a hopefully viable mixed economy they seek special consideration with regard to employment opportunities generated by resource exploitation activities undertaken in their traditional territory by outsiders. Contrary to the deliberately deceitful propaganda of both levels of Canadian government there is in fact nothing that the Lubicon people seek which is unique or which is not part of existing treaty agreements with other aboriginal societies in Canada. And one need not simply take the Lubicon's word on it. Copies of Lubicon settlement proposals are in writing. They are publicly available upon request. And they have been reviewed in detail by several independent authorities all of whom have agreed in publicly available reports that Lubicon settlement proposals are neither unique nor unreasonable. Lastly the two enclosed documents given to the Austrian Ambassador by the Boutillier bunch are similarly dishonest, deceitful and despicable. The first document is entitled "Recent Settlements of Treaty Land Entitlement Claims in Alberta". It lists the amount of reserve land and financial compensation provided by seven recent settlements without taking into account the number of people involved, the fact that all of the Bands on the provincial list (except the notorious Woodland Cree Band) already had fully developed reserve lands or the profound difference between what the Canadian government euphemistically categorizes as "specific" and "comprehensive claims". Having already indicated that the Lubicons are seeking to retain 60,800 acres (95 square miles) of their 4,000 square mile traditional territory for reserve purposes and $200 million in financial compensation, Boutillier and Co. gave the Austrian Ambassador a list of "recent settlements...in Alberta" which indicates, for example, that the Sturgeon Lake Band settled for 16,207 acres and $5,575,000 in financial compensation. The purpose of providing these Sturgeon Lake settlement numbers in juxtaposition to the already provided Lubicon numbers is of course to again suggest how dramatically out of line Lubicon demands supposedly are with recent aboriginal settlements. However the Boutillier bunch is again deliberately playing fast and loose with the truth. What the list of "recent settlements" provided to the Austrian Ambassador conveniently fails to note is that the Sturgeon Lake Band already has a fully developed reserve and that the recent Sturgeon Lake settlement was in fact to provide reserve land and financial compensation for a maximum of 34 people not counted when the main Sturgeon Lake reserve was established in 1908 (typically at odds over the number of people "entitled" to be counted the Band listed 34 people who'd been missed, the Provincial government only agreed that 21 people on the list of 34 had been missed and the federal government only agreed that 32 people of the people on the list of 34 had been missed). If one deducts Lubicon reserve construction costs, since the Sturgeon Lake Band already has a fully developed reserve financed by the federal government over the years by virtue of a treaty signed with the Sturgeon Lake people in 1899, the Lubicons are seeking $100 million in financial compensation and 60,800 acres in reserve land for about 500 people. As indicated the Sturgeon Lake Band recently received $5,575,000 in financial compensation and 16,207 acres in reserve land for between 21 and 34 people who'd been missed when the size of the main Sturgeon Lake reserve was calculated in 1908. $5,575,000 and 16,207 acres for 21 people is 772 acres and $288,238 per person. $5,575,000 and 16,207 acres for 34 people is 477 acres and $178,030 per person. Were 500 Lubicons to receive reserve land on the same per capita basis as the Sturgeon Lake people recently received the Lubicons would receive between 238,720 and 385,920 acres in reserve land (instead of the 60,800 agreed at Grimshaw) and between $89 and $144 million in financial compensation (instead of the $100 million being sought.) Similarly with regard to the recent Whitefish Lake Band settlement which provided ADDITIONAL reserve land and financial compensation for 47 people not taken into account when the Whitefish Lake reserve was established also in 1908. The amount of additional reserve land recently provided to the Whitefish Lake Band was in fact 5,832 acres and the amount of financial compensation was in fact $19,666,000. 5,832 acres for 47 people is 124 acres per person. $19,666,000 for 47 people on top of already provided reserve construction costs is $418,425 per person. Were 500 Lubicons to receive reserve land and financial compensation on the same per capita basis as that recently received by the Whitefish Lake people the Lubicons would receive 62,080 acres of reserve land (instead of the 60,800 agreed at Grimshaw) and over $209 million in financial compensation (instead of the $100 million being sought). The situation is even more dramatic if one takes into account the profound differences between so-called "specific" and "comprehensive" claims. According to the Canadian government a "comprehensive land claim" is one where an aboriginal society never signed a treaty with the federal government ceding jurisdiction over a typically large traditional territory and is consequently still in a position to negotiate the terms of such a treaty. A "specific land claim", according to the Canadian government, is one where an aboriginal society signed a treaty supposedly ceding traditional aboriginal lands but for whatever reasons didn't end up with the always much smaller amount of reserve land specified by that treaty, or at least didn't end up with all of the reserve land specified by that treaty, and is therefore "entitled" only to whatever reserve land is specified by the involved treaty. All of the "settlements" on the list provided to the Austrian Ambassador by the Boutillier bunch are "specific" claim settlements. However agreement has never been reached between the Lubicon people and either level of Canadian government as to whether Lubicon land rights are "comprehensive" rights or "specific" rights. The Lubicons understandably insist that their aboriginal land rights are "comprehensive" since they've never signed a treaty or ceded their rightful historic jurisdiction over their traditional territory to anybody in any legally or historically recognized way. Both levels of Canadian government insist that Lubicon land rights are "specific" since agreeing that the Lubicons retain unextinguished aboriginal land rights over the entire traditional Lubicon territory would be tantamount to admitting the terrible truth that the federal government transferred Lubicon lands to the provincial government without first properly obtaining rights to those lands through negotiation of a treaty with the Lubicons -- and that the provincial government consequently doesn't now exercise legitimate jurisdiction over the entire 4,000 square mile traditional Lubicon territory from which it has extracted an estimated $7 billion in valuable resources in the last 14 years. (In this regard it's notable that both levels of Canadian government have made clear that they'll require the Lubicons to sign a formal "adhesion" to Treaty 8 as part of any final settlement agreement -- something which would obviously be redundant if they really believe that the Lubicons are already covered by Treaty 8.) Admittedly distorting the true picture by ignoring population numbers, as the list provided to the Austrian Ambassador by the Boutillier bunch deliberately does, and simply comparing the Lubicon position on land and financial compensation with the land and financial compensation provided by recent "COMPREHENSIVE" settlements negotiated with other aboriginal societies in Canada -- as does the list provided to the Austrian Ambassador by the Boutillier bunch -- the suggestion that the Lubicons are being unreasonable and unrealistic becomes even more strained. Compared to the 60,800 acres in reserve land and the $100 million in financial compensation being sought by the Lubicons the James Bay "comprehensive" settlement, for example, provides 1,370,240 acres of reserve land and financial compensation of $135 million. The Yukon "comprehensive" settlement provides 6,424,690 acres of reserve land and $243 million in financial compensation. And the Inuit "comprehensive" settlement provides 9,281,920 acres of reserve land and $580 million in financial compensation. The second document given to the Austrian Ambassador by the Boutillier bunch is entitled "Comparison of Lubicon Band's Settlement Proposal With Formal Offers Which Have Been Advanced By Canada and Alberta". The false information which this second document contains, and the false impressions which it deliberately creates, are even more pernicious than the false information and impressions deliberately conveyed by the first document. On the issue of "reserve land" this second document says that providing the Lubicons the 95 square miles of reserve land agreed at Grimshaw is "conditional on (the) Band providing releases for all 477 members at the time of the Grimshaw accord". However, it says, the "Band's current population is estimated to be less than 300". None of this is true but saying it and saying it in this way is again not without conscious design. It deliberately reinforces if only through the type of calculated repetition associated with Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels the impression that there aren't too many Lubicons left. And it creates a deliberately fallacious impression about the terms of the Grimshaw Accord which is clearly intended to prepare people for breaking the Grimshaw Accord. In fact the 95 square mile reserve agreed at Grimshaw was deliberately not tied to a specific number of people and the Boutillier bunch knows it. Boutillier and Kristensen were both at Grimshaw and they both know the terms of the Grimshaw Accord. (It's not correct information which they lack but other things like decency, honesty, integrity and veracity.) Premier Getty proposed the Grimshaw Accord specifically over the objections of the Boutillier bunch to get around a long-standing disagreement regarding the number of Lubicons entitled to be counted for purposes of calculating reserve land size. That disagreement was caused by the Boutillier bunch playing earlier versions of their numbers games and the Lubicons steadfastly insisting that they be allowed to determine their own membership and retain 128 acres per person of their traditional territory for reserve purposes as had other aboriginal societies in the surrounding area who'd made treaty with the Canadian government. (At one point, for example, the Lubicons counted hundreds of members all related by blood and by history to the traditional Lubicon territory -- which have always been the main Lubicon membership criteria -- and the Boutillier bunch were arguing that they had calculated by their various and continually changing criteria that there were only 7 or less Lubicons entitled to be counted for purposes of calculating reserve land size.) Under pressure of Lubicon assertion of jurisdiction over the entire 4,000 square mile traditional Lubicon territory which was threatening the Provincial government's ability to enforce Provincial laws, Premier Getty proposed and Chief Ominayak agreed to settle on an amount of reserve land which both considered "fair" -- INDEPENDENT OF THE POSITIONS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS ON MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS. Premier Getty proposed to transfer 79 square miles with full sub-surface rights to the Federal government for purposes of creating a Lubicon reserve. Chief Ominayak responded that he didn't think 79 square miles of reserve land could be considered "fair" when the surrounding Bands that signed Treaty 8 at the turn of the century had received reserve land on the basis of a membership formula which would result in a Lubicon reserve of 95 square miles with full sub-surface rights. Premier Getty then proposed to sell the Federal government another 16 square miles of reserve land without sub-surface rights to make a deal -- still independent of known disagreement over membership numbers. And Chief Ominayak agreed independent of the known disagreement over membership numbers to accept Premier Getty's proposal of 79 square miles with full sub-surface rights plus another 16 square miles with surface rights only on the condition that the Provincial government could not access the sub-surface rights on the 16 square miles without Lubicon agreement. The Grimshaw deal was made on that basis -- on the basis of an amount of land which the Premier and the Chief agreed in the way indicated to be "fair" -- deliberately not on the basis of membership numbers. (The "releases" referred to in the enclosed "comparison" of proposals and offers sheet given to the Austrian Ambassador by the Boutillier bunch were only requested by Premier Getty at the insistence of Provincial officials and lawyers (including Boutillier and Kristensen) supposedly to provide the Provincial government with legal assurance that it would receive a full and final release from all involved Lubicons specifically regarding the question of reserve land -- not to prove membership numbers or to condition the amount of reserve land agreed by the Chief and the Premier as "fair".) One additional point need be made on the question of Lubicon membership and that point of course pertains to the reason for the current debate over Lubicon membership. Contrary to the so-called "comparison" sheet given to the Austrian Ambassador by the Boutillier bunch the Grimshaw Accord was made not on December 20, 1989 but on October 22, 1988. Tellingly it is now nearly 6 years later; the Grimshaw Accord still hasn't been implemented and in the interim both levels of Canadian Government have repeatedly tried to render the unimplemented Grimshaw Accord moot by tearing the Lubicon society asunder. The well-documented efforts to tear the Lubicon society asunder including creation of the new Woodland and Loon River Bands and the more recent Laboucan family initiative have been detailed at length elsewhere. While doing terrible damage to the Lubicon society these efforts have failed to accomplish the informally admitted objective of Federal and Provincial representatives alike to wipe out the Lubicon society altogether. Having failed to wipe out the Lubicon society altogether Boutillier and Co. are now implying that the Grimshaw Accord should be broken essentially because of the damage they claim to have done to Lubicon membership with their nefarious schemes to tear the Lubicon society asunder. If they are allowed to break the Grimshaw Accord on this basis they will thus be rewarded for unprincipled, undemocratic, colonialistic, racist, extra- legal and autocratic behaviour as raw and offensive as that practised by multi-national resource exploitation companies and their government cronies in any tinpot banana republic. (Continued in Part 2)