Jones Ignace released from custody on parole

Page 6

Interview with Gustafsen Lake figure

For a few days it seemed as if a local officer of the federal parole board could muzzle freedom of speech as a precondition of continuing parole. This was claimed by Wolverine when Raven's Eye called him for an interview on Feb. 21.

The Vancouver office of the National Parole Board says no such order was issued by them, but a local parole officer in the employ of Corrections Canada is responsible for the day-to-day supervision of paroled inmates. Lorrie Kelsey is Wolverine's parole officer.

"If you're asking if I ordered Mr. Ignace not to speak, the answer is no," she said. "But he was released with the expectation that he would keep a low profile."

Kelsey explained that all parolees are technically still prisoners who are out of custody subject to certain rules and regulations. The main consideration in all decisions made by a parole officer that may curtail the freedom of a parolee are public safety, she explained, and therefore part of her job is deciding whether or not parolees under her supervision can or cannot do certain things.

Raven's Eye: You have been called a political prisoner by many. Was your treatment in the correctional system different from that of other prisoners?

Wolverine: I was not made to take any of the programs for criminal prisoners. And I was discouraged from speaking out. Criminal inmates were encouraged to speak about their lives, and actions. But this method of healing was not permitted in my case. Even though I felt I was defending the truth, I was discouraged from telling my story. Also my work was paid at the lowest wage rate.

When I got out, it became worse. There is a verbal restriction on my parole to the effect that if I speak out, I'll be locked up again. They did not put it down in writing. It's just verbal. For example, I have been asked to speak at Cariboo College. The parole officer asked me what I would say. I told him I would speak about the truth. That's when she warned me not to speak.

RE: What other things have happened since your coming home?

W: Apart from the fact that there is so much work to do around the farm? The fences need fixing. My phones are still tapped, and I am under surveillance. [Indeed clicking noises can be heard during the conversation from time to time]. My movements have been limited by the parole order to a small area. Some chiefs are saying they don't want me to speak in their communities. What are they afraid of?

RE: Why did you go to Gustafsen Lake in the first place?

W: I went there originally as a Sundancer. During this time someone sent in rednecks to shoot at us, and we returned fire. It may have been a deliberate provocation. The shots at us were witnessed by a woman, Madeline Gregoire, who was doing a fast at the time. She was going to give a statement to the police that we were shot at first, but police wouldn't take it.

RE: But you left the area after the Sundance?

W: Yes, but we came back when Percy Rosette called for help, because he saw masked men with heavy firepower in the bush. This turned out to be the RCMP ERT (Emergency Response Team) men. I feel I was marked for death by the police.

RE: That would seem to have been corroborated by memos between the two top Mounties read in court during trial, to the effect that "six hard-liners should die."

What are your conclusions from this whole thing: the standoff, the trial, your imprisonment?

W: There's no justice for Native people. Never was and never will be. This cover up [Gustafsen] is more than at APEC. It takes in the prime minister, federal and provincial politicians, the police, the media and the courts. At Gustafsen they used live, hollow point ammunition on us, even a 50 mm machine gun. At APEC they only used pepper spray. They even used a land mine against us (to blow up a truck going to get water, videotape of which was played in court). And the prime minister goes around the world asking everyone to ban them! Canada has banned them!

Ten there was the trial. What can you do if 75 of the 78 police witnesses lied on the stand? Incidentally, the police got stress treatment after the stand-off. What did we get? People think it's nothing to have [20,000 to 70,000 rounds of] live ammunition fired at you in a day. But you have to react in a split second or you're dead. There's no time to think. Our only healing is to speak out about this, to have the truth come out. And that we're being denied.

RE: You've been an activist for many years.

W: I've been active since the 70s. I didn't do this for money. In fact I've spent my own money, selling farm equipment and stock that I needed for my family, just to help my people, to warn them, to tell them the truth. Since the 1980s I have also spoken about the dangers of pesticides and herbicides to the environment. You see the eagles laying eggs with weak shells - eggs that don't hatch - when they feed on environmental poisons. I went into organic seed raising. But public response was disappointing.

RE: What is the motivation for your activism?

W: I want to see justice in this country. We are accused of living off the backs of the settler community if we collect a couple of hundred dollars in welfare. They stole billions from us. It's just a way of making the victim feel guilty, of turning mainstream society against us. And the mainstream people are kept in ignorance, living in comfort.

No one asks: How did the land get into the hands of the immigrants? Under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 no transfer could take place without Native agreement, and/or Crown purchase. This was never done in B.C. Where is the justice for my people? I have always stood on the law, and on truth. But I don't see it for my people.

Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada threw out our jurisdiction case. Because it is of no national interest to Canada, he said, "Why should we entertain these cases?" With that sort of attitude, what can we expect?

RE: By what process do you thinkyou could get justice?

W: We need a third party tribunal, such as was held in 1704 by Queen Anne, when she decided a land case in favor of the Mohicans. The current Queen would be the right person to hold such a tribunal.

This province has a long history of oppressing our people. In 1874 the (pre-confederation) administration submitted a proposal to Ottawa, which would have completely disinherited our Nations, and made it impossible for any of us to own land. This proposal was disallowed by the federal Justice minister in 1875. He stated it was not in keeping with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Clearly, that was seen to be in force at that time.

Various sections of the Constitution carry this on to the present. But the justice system is acting as judge, jury and executioner. That's why we need a third party tribunal.

Is Wolverine too optimistic about the powers of our Queen? Letters from citizens requesting a third party tribunal have routinely been passed on to the Governor General of Canada, and then sent by his office to the minister of Indian Affairs. This does not bode well for an impartial forum being set up by the sovereign.

But what other avenues might there be for achieving justice? Many people hail the 1997 Delgamuukw decision of the Supreme Court of Canada as the dawn of a new era. While there are some positive aspects, there are also a number of troubling ones.

For example, in his decision, Chief Justice Lamer repeatedly returns to the date 1846 as the time when "the Crown assumed sovereignty" over the territory of British Columbia. This was the Oregon Treaty, which established the 49th parallel as the border between the British holdings and the United States. It appears that it was basically a trade treaty between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest Trading Company. One might call it one of the first nation-changing global corporate treaties.

But how could the British Crown under this deal legally assume such sweeping sovereignty in 1846, in batant contravention of the Royal Proclamation, which had then been in force for about 70 years? There is no record of any Aboriginal Nation of this territory even being at the table during this momentous meeting, much less giving their informed consent to giving up the sovereignty that the Crown so hastily assumed. Nor was there any "valuable consideration" given for the loss of this territory. Could it be that the assumption of Crown sovereignty was not altogether legal? Should that perhaps be the starting point in future discussions of Native sovereignty during any land claims negotiations?