AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 28, 2001

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order for Monday, May 28. I know this time is not our regular committee time, so I thank everyone who was able to come out and attend this committee meeting.

We're dealing with Bill S-24, an act to implement an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting governance of certain lands by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an act in consequence.

• 1535

I want to thank everyone who was able to come here and speak before the committee. As I've explained to some of the witnesses, we're going to try to do ten minutes total between Ms. Bonspille and Mr. Bonspille. There will be more time during the question and answer session to expand on some of the items that you feel you might not have been able to address. We'll try to stick to the time limits as much as we can, so that everyone gets an opportunity to ask questions.

Without further ado, I'm not sure which one would like to start first.

Mr. Bonspille, we'll give you an opportunity to address the committee.

Mr. Steve Bonspille (Individual Presentation): My name is Steven Lindsay Bonspille and I'm here today to speak in opposition to the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, or as it is known, Bill S-24. Accompanying me is Mr. David Tehonwisonte Gabriel, a traditionalist from Kanesatake who is here to answer any of your concerns regarding that sector of our community.

I have lived in Kanesatake all of my life and I am a member of the Bear Clan. For the past nine years I have been the director of the Kanesatake Cultural Centre. In 1996 Grand Chief James Gabriel was quoted as saying “I take my orders from the community”. If this still held true, then the present land governance agreement would not be before the House in front of this committee today. We would not be having this discussion.

The community of Kanesatake—and I emphasize “community”—voted overwhelmingly against the land governance agreement. A total of 64 mail-in ballots were counted in the vote. Of these, 61, or 95%, were in favour of the land governance agreement. These votes are from people who don't live in the community of Kanesatake. The grand chief will try to tell you that our territory includes ancestral lands from the seigneury of the Lake of Two Mountains. Well, it only does so when it provides an end to his means.

Non-resident band members are only informed of major issues, such as elections, when they occur. They are not well-informed as to what is happening at the community level on a consistent basis. They do not know the issues. The sentiment in the community of Kanesatake is that non-residents should not be allowed to vote.

I would also like to know how the Government of Canada can support the 50% plus one rule as a valid indicator of a people's will. What if only 20 people had voted in this ratification process? What then?

I want to touch on the undemocratic and, I might add, un-Mohawk process that governed this whole issue. The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake always jumps under the band custom regulation when it suits their purposes. The last time I checked, we were a Mohawk community. So should it not follow that the custom be Mohawk custom? This ratification vote was conducted under the guise of a European custom called 50% plus one or a simple majority. The Mohawk custom is consensus.

James Gabriel seems to think that democracy only arrived in Kanesatake in 1992. Does he not know that we have been and still are part of the greatest democracy on earth—the Iroquois Confederacy? It certainly is evidenced in his lack of respect for the Mohawk culture, language, and democratic system. The truth of the matter is that the process undertaken by the council was definitely not respectful of all views of Kanesatake people. James Gabriel should be ashamed for imposing the European custom over our very own Mohawk custom. The simple majority was invoked unilaterally by Grand Chief James Gabriel and Minister Nault.

I attended two workshops in 1998 concerning the LGA and not once was it ever mentioned that a simple majority vote procedure would be used. The Kanesatake electoral code was used to guide the ratification vote in process. This code is very specific. It is to be used for the election of chiefs only. There is no mention of procedures to govern ratification votes as such.

James Gabriel stated in 1996 that:

I want to talk to the community before anything, because they are fed up with hearing everything through the media. In the past the Councils doors were closed, but now I want to inform the community on all the financial reports of the Council.

This LGA was signed without telling the community. Everyone heard about the signing through the media, just like the policing agreement of 1998.

Under James Gabriel's administration there has never been in five years a financial report made public to the community of Kanesatake.

• 1540

It must be noted that the most intensive dissemination of information concerning the LGA was conducted only after the document became public. It must also be noted that two public meetings were held on the LGA.

At the first meeting, the majority of those present voiced their displeasure with the LGA and the fact that it was done behind the community's back. At the second meeting in July, the grand chief walked out on the people when they motioned for his resignation. Since 1996, there have been three separate calls for James Gabriel's resignation from three separate groups in Kanesatake.

What I have here are just some bullet points that I'd like to touch on, because time is very limited. In Kanesatake, according to 1998 statistics, there were 1,450 eligible voters on the band list. So according to the ratification process, only 468 people voted. This means only 33.5% of the population took part in this process.

According to James Gabriel, the traditionalist sector accounts for 20% to 30% of the voting population, which means 240 to 360 people. It is well-known that this sector is against the land governance agreement. In their address to the Senate standing committee, the whole truth was not told concerning the functioning of the Kanesatake Orihwa'shon:a Development Corporation. There is continuing interference with the police operations by the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake.

Mohawk Council of Kanesatake accountability to the community—I would like to know why it takes a land governance code to accomplish this task when they should be doing that already. There are no provisions in the LGA for language and culture. Everything is geared towards control and economic gains.

In conclusion, I would like to state for the record that I am opposed to this land governance agreement and code, Bill S-24. I will not be party to the destruction of all that our forefathers fought and died for. When this agreement was signed by James Gabriel on June 21, 2000, many people were shocked and surprised. Even some council chiefs had no idea that an agreement was going to be signed that day. The only people who knew about this agreement were the signatories and the press.

I do not know the extent of influence that this committee has with regard to the halting of this bill. I urge you to not endorse this damaging act that excludes close to 1,000 voters. If you truly believe in democracy, then listen to your conscience and stop this bill from becoming law now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bonspille. Is that the conclusion?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: That's my conclusion.

The Chair: Okay. Ms. Pearl Bonspille, for your five minutes of presentation.

Ms. Debbie Bonspille (Individual Presentation): Thank you for allowing me to read Pearl Bonspille's presentation to this committee.

The Chair: Excuse me, can you give your name?

Ms. Debbie Bonspille: Debbie Bonspille.

The Chair: I don't have you on the agenda, so I don't know if I have to ask for the committee's indulgence to allow for two witnesses.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Just a minute here. She's just reading the presentation.

Ms. Debbie Bonspille: I'm not answering any questions the committee has.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Debbie Bonspille: Thank you for allowing me to read Pearl Bonspille's presentation to this committee. Pearl lost her brother just last weekend and she's still in mourning. But she will try to answer your questions if you have any.

My name is Debbie Bonspille and I am a Mohawk community member living within the Kanesatake Mohawk territory. We are accompanied by two of our community elders, Janet Nicholas and Lenore Nicholas Denis.

I want to thank the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources for allowing us to make this presentation to you. This submission was prepared by Pearl Bonspille. She is a Mohawk community member of the Bear Clan, born, raised, and living on the Kanesatake Mohawk territory in Kanesatake, Quebec.

She is a proud, full-blooded Mohawk and the mother of one child whose future she has a duty to protect. We have been asked by many members living on our precious Mohawk territory to write this presentation to you and to the general public at large concerning this Bill S-24. We have just learned that the standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has completed its hearings on Bill S-24 and also completed the third reading of this bill. Unfortunately, time did not permit us to make a presentation to the Senate hearings because of the short notice we had about the hearings.

• 1545

The Mohawk people of Kanesatake were shocked and surprised to hear from our Mohawk brothers and sisters, from other Mohawk communities, that this bill, S-24, went directly to the Senate without being first introduced into the House of Commons.

Our community members first heard of the secret signing of the lands governance agreement by Minister Robert Nault and James Gabriel last December 21, 2000, in Ottawa, Ontario, from the media. Once the media had the information, the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake had no choice but to issue a statement to the public announcing the signing of the agreement. The council also said the next step for the agreement would be to table legislation in the House of Commons, but they were not sure how long this would take and when the agreement would become law.

We were told by our advisers that for a bill to become law, it goes through the following stages: one, the member who introduces the bill is given leave of the House; two, the bill is read the first time and printed; three, the bill is read a second time; four, the bill is referred to a committee; five, the bill is considered in committee and reported back to the House; six, the House concurs on the bill at report stages; seven, the bill is read a third time and passed by the House; eight, the bill goes through stages in the Senate, approximately the same as those in the House; and nine, the bill finally receives royal assent.

Bill S-24 did not go through this process; it went directly to the Senate. Why? Why did Grand Chief James Gabriel mislead us by telling us that this agreement must go through the House of Commons? What is the government's real hidden agenda for the Mohawks of Kanesatake—extinguishment, assimilation, or both?

We would like to comment on the presentations made to the standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples concerning this bill. We have had an opportunity to review the presentation made by Robert Nault, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, on April 25, 2001.

Minister Nault's statement was so believable that he was able to snowball the senators into believing that what he was saying was the truth. He actually convinced himself that he was telling the truth. This is a very scary thought.

Minister Nault did acknowledge that sending this legislation to the Senate before it went to the House was different. The minister stated, and I quote:

Historically, we have not done that, and I do not see why we have not because it is a good process.... Perhaps that is a good trend to continue. We will test it for a while. We have other pieces of legislation that will be coming your way in the next year that we may have some discussions about and consider, with the approval of the House leadership.

We can only conclude that Minister Nault was referring to the first nations governance, an initiative he launched on April 30, 2001, which has now been rejected by the first nations leadership across this country. But Minister Nault said he was going to proceed with the plan to introduce his legislation in the fall. We all know this will be a big mistake on his part. We guess he will use the same tactics he used on Bill S-24 and bypass the House of Commons.

We would also like to correct a statement Mr. Nault made to the senators concerning his so-called initialling ceremony held on June 21, 2000, in Kanesatake. The initialling ceremony was a well-kept secret. We did not even know that we had a draft land governance agreement. The council kept this as a well-guarded secret. We did not know the minister was coming, and we weren't told what he was going to be doing in Kanesatake.

Once the minister arrived and the word got out that the minister was at the community gym, some of our community members went there and told him that we did not support this agreement and we did not know what was being signed by James Gabriel. Then the minister went to the pines area, where some of our community members were gathering. At first, no one knew who he was. We all thought he was a news reporter covering our June 21 events. When he introduced himself, some community members asked what he was doing in Kanesatake. He was told that we did not support what the council was trying to pass; we did not know what was in the agreement; we did not know what was being discussed at the so-called negotiating table; and we were all being kept in the dark on everything that was happening in our community.

The unannounced visit by Minister Robert Nault to Kanesatake last June 21, in which he and James Gabriel secretly initialled a land governance agreement, was one of the darkest and saddest days of our community. This was the real beginning, whereby our rights were being taken away.

• 1550

This to us was like the second coming of Tom Siddon, a former Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs under the Conservative government back in the 1990s. Mr. Siddon used to sneak into our community and sneak back out.

We were also able to get a copy of a speech Minister Nault apparently made at the initial ceremony. But who did he make it to? An empty hall? The speech sounds impressive on paper, but no one from our community heard it, except the council members and the Mayor of Oka.

Minister Nault kept saying in his presentation to the senators that we, the Mohawk people of Kanesatake, have no law-making powers or no laws, period. Now, the chief and council are starting to believe him. This is totally untrue.

We are part of the Mohawk Nation and we are part of the Iroquois Confederacy. Our laws and law-making powers flow from the Iroquois constitution and our treaties.

Our homeland is the Lake of Two Mountains area, measuring over 250 square miles. The government people refer to our territory as the “scenery of the Lake of Two Mountains”. This is our homeland and we will never surrender it to anyone.

The minister also talks about the consultation process. He says it was fair and transparent. Again, this statement is totally false.

The band council was forced, by our newsletters, to go public on some issues affecting our community. There are many other matters that we are not allowed to see, such as financial matters.

We would like to quote from the minister's statement to the senators. On page 2 he said:

...but we can go no further in our efforts to resolve outstanding grievances of the Mohawks of Kanesatake without this agreement and its implementing legislation.

We disagree with this statement. This agreement does nothing to resolve our problems. This agreement has created a division within our community and caused more mistrust toward the council.

The minister also makes it sound like everything is going great in our community. He talks about economic development, job creation programs, and a policing system. This is far from the truth. We are not sure what community he is talking about in his speech. Our people rejected the policing agreement, as it was currently written, but James Gabriel signed it anyway, without our consent. This is why our people do not respect the Kanesatake Mohawk policing system.

Do not get us wrong. We do support a policing system and law enforcement, but under our laws and jurisdiction.

We would like to speak about the ratification vote that was held on October 7 and 14, 2000.

We insist that the voting process was flawed, and a margin of two votes, a two-vote difference, did not give the council the right to sign this agreement.

We maintain the following:

1) the ratification vote process was not carried out impartially;

2) the chief electoral officer refused to carry out a recount, as requested by some community members;

3) the staff working in the polling stations were band council employees and therefore they were not independent and did not represent the interests of the community members;

4) there were no independent scrutineers at the polling stations;

5) the people were not informed, in advance, of the wording of the question they were asked to vote on;

6) the question asked on the ballot was very vague and most people who voted did not understand the question;

7) there were some community members who decided not to vote after they saw the question because they felt it was a trick question;

8) the majority of the community members living in Kanesatake voted no to the agreement;

9) the majority of the community who do not live nor have an address in Kanesatake supported the agreement;

10) the band council cancelled all public meetings on this important matter before voting day and therefore violated and breached the agreement to the people of Kanesatake, as outlined in our land claim agreement;

11) the community members were not properly informed of the voting process;

12) there were no voting regulations and procedures given to our community members before the voting day;

13) the community does not have a membership code—the community was not given the opportunity to decide who was entitled to vote on matters affecting our future;

14) the community does not have a referendum or ratification code;

15) the community does not have an up-to-date election code;

16) the community members were not given the opportunity to review the question to be asked on the ballot sheet;

17) the community members were not given the right or choice to decide what percent of the voting population would be acceptable to the community for ratification or referendum to be accepted—the grand chief denied the community the right to decide on the number that would constitute a clear majority;

18) and there are many other legal reasons.

These are some of our objections to the flawed voting process, but we have not been listened to by the minister and council.

• 1555

We must point out that we did meet with the Hon. Lawrence A. Poitras, retired judge of the Quebec Superior Court, on December 14, 2000, to officially file our objection to the outcome of the voting process and results. We asked Judge Poitras if he would conduct a review of the whole ratification voting process, and he told us at that time he did not have a mandate to conduct a review of the voting process. His mandate was only to conduct a recount of the ballots.

We did not participate in the recount process because we could not endorse a flawed voting process. Then we learned that the judge was given a mandate by James Gabriel to conduct a review of the voting process, but again no one in our community knew that this was being done. Judge Poitras did not interview anyone from our community, as far as we know. He based his conclusions and report on information provided only by the band council and their lawyers. The report looks good, but we were not consulted at all. The community members were denied the right to tell the truth about the flawed voting process.

We thought about commenting on the presentation made by James Gabriel and Brenda Etienne to the Senate, but we would be wasting our time. We can only say that 70% to 80% of their statements are false.

Kanesatake still has the highest unemployment rate compared to other communities, and the number of people on welfare is growing. More and more of our community members have to leave the community to look for work, because the council will not allow them to be employed under government-funded programs. The council has managed to stop the media from entering our territory to cover local problems, unless they get the permission from the grand chief. The council refuses to provide financial audits to us.

We would like to correct one big misconception concerning the creation of the Kanesatake Orihwa'shon:a Development Corporation, KODC. This corporation was created in secret and we were not given the opportunity to debate it. We got our information about the corporation through access to information.

The Chair: Ms. Bonspille, do you have much more material, because we're now at 14 minutes and it cuts into the question and answer time?

Ms. Debbie Bonspille: Yes.

The Chair: I would very much appreciate it if you could wind down, and then we could do some of it during the question and answer session. Thank you.

Ms. Debbie Bonspille: Okay. I have about six pages left.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille (Individual Presentation): There are three pages left. Can she read it really fast?

The Chair: Okay. I was hoping some of it could come out in the question and answer period, but go ahead, because we had set 10 minutes for a presentation and we're now at 20.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Can she just read a bit more?

The Chair: I guess so.

Ms. Debbie Bonspille: Okay.

We found out that three individuals, James Gabriel, Michelle Lamouche, and Norman Tewish, applied for an application for incorporation of a corporation without share capital under part 2 of the Canada Corporations Act on May 25, 1997. All were council members at this time, and James Gabriel was still on council.

This was set up as a not-for-profit corporation and KODC was formed. The three applicants became the first board of directors of KODC. They then hand-picked the other board members without a membership meeting. Then about June 30, 1999, KODC, on behalf of the Mohawks of Kanesatake and Indian and Northern Affairs, they signed a management agreement. This was done without the community's approval and knowledge. According to James Gabriel's presentation to the senators, the KODC was arm's-length from the Mohawk council. James Gabriel stated that the shareholders were all community members. This is absolutely not true.

The community members who called us made it very clear that they were ready to defend and protect our territory and aboriginal rights by any means possible. We agree with Ellen Gabriel, spokesperson on behalf of the traditional longhouse people of Kanesatake, when she told the senators on May 10 that this land governance agreement, therefore, is only going to create another event like that seen in 1990. Is this what the Government of Canada really wants?

Furthermore, the community members also told us they cannot wait for June 27, 2001. This is when this current band council will be out of office and a completely new council will be elected. This new council will rescind the land governance agreement signed by James Gabriel and the federal government and stop the implementation of Bill S-24 on our territory.

We are recommending that someone be appointed from your committee to come to Kanesatake and meet with our people at a public meeting before you pass this bill. We are prepared to do a fundraiser to offset any costs your committee might incur.

• 1600

Thank you for listening to our presentation.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Each party has seven minutes to ask questions of either witness, and we'll try very hard to stick within our time limit so everyone can ask questions. We have another set of witnesses who are going to be appearing.

Mr. Elley, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Unfortunately, a little over a week ago some members of this committee stood in the House of Commons and castigated the Alliance Party for holding up this process by insisting on a day of testimony. We believe in democracy in our party. We believe everyone ought to have their say at this table—whether they agree or not with this bill—and so I'm very glad you're here today.

We are here to listen to what you have to say, to hear the information you have provided for us. We want you to know on behalf of this party that we want only for native people across this country to have the very best in a standard of living, jobs, economic development, government—local government you can support—and that is part of what this process is. Thank you for coming today. We're glad you're here.

It's clear, however, from what you are telling us at this point, that you really represent a divided community. On the one hand we have heard that this bill is necessary: it gives you a legal entity, and within this framework you then can proceed to do shared partnerships and work to bring economic prosperity to your territory; it is respectful of your traditions; it has the support of the municipality and the Government of Quebec; and yet you're telling us here today that you really represent a divided community.

If this passes, can you tell us how you see the future then for your community? What will have to be done within your community to bring this division together? Is it possible? Can you give us some kind of information to help us to see the future? Very often as parliamentarians we pass legislation that affects the now. We know it affects the future, but we don't often take stock of the future. Can you tell us a little about that? Any one can answer it.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I'll take a shot at it.

I cannot predict what's going to happen down the road should this LGA go through, should this bill pass. I cannot predict it. But in the opinion of someone who has lived in Kanesatake his entire life, I see the introduction of self-government within our territory at a moment when we do not have the means to be self-sufficient.

Many times through this process James Gabriel has stated that it's not a self-government issue, it doesn't deal with self-government at all; yet in an interview with the Tekawennake newspaper from Six Nations in New Credit he states that it's final recognition by the government of our self-government.

Minister Nault was also quoted in the Eastern Door, June 2000. When asked the question, does this mean the Mohawk council is heading toward self-government, he said “I would see this as very much self-government in the making”. our grand chief has said repeatedly it's not a self-government agreement.

So I don't know what this holds for Kanesatake down the road. All I know is that should it pass, we will have to deal with it and move forward as best we can as a community, but we are such a divided community on this issue in terms of non-residency and residency.

• 1605

The people who actually live in Kanesatake are against this agreement. My family lives in Kanesatake. They're against this agreement. My cousins, most of my friends—they're all against this agreement. It's the people.... Take away those 61 votes of people who did not live there and don't know the issues, what's happening in our community, and I wouldn't be sitting here today, because it would have gone nowhere.

The council relies on the outside vote to pass it. That's as clear as it can be regarding the outcome of the vote. Without the mail-in ballots they hold so dear, it wouldn't have passed. With 61 fewer votes they would have been under 200, that's for sure—180 or so votes are all they would have had.

Down the road I don't know what it holds. I'm just hoping we don't have to go down that road, that there'll be more consultation on this with our community, because a final draft was never presented to Kanesatake, to the people who live there.

I never got this document before James Gabriel initialled it. I never heard him say “This is what I'm about to initial, what do you think?” I never saw it. I saw it the day after he initialled it—“Okay guys, this is the deal. Yes or no. What's it going to be?”

So the people...we were out playing lacrosse on June 21. I was at the lacrosse box. I remember we were having a game of lacrosse and they all strode into our picnic area. Everyone said “What's going on?”, and people said “They signed an agreement.” I said “What are you talking about?” Everyone was surprised. The elders who were there had no idea what was going on.

Now, everyone knew of the workshops happening prior to this. People attended, as I said, but no one was given a final draft to say “What do you think?” This community of Kanesatake did not give James Gabriel the authority or their consent to say “Initial it and let's take it to a vote”. He didn't have that authority coming from a Mohawk community. He didn't have it—as far as I'm concerned, he didn't have it.

So that's my reply.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: I feel this whole process was flawed. This whole agreement does not recognize our treaty rights, our aboriginal rights. It's not what we want. We already have our 250 square miles of our territory, which is our homeland. We don't want an interim agreement. The whole process on which this took place....

I do know that for other communities across the country, especially the Inuit, it had to be a 60%-plus majority. The community members had a choice. They were given the opportunity to say “Yes, we want a 60%, or a 50%, or an 80%, or a 90% majority to pass this agreement”. We never had this opportunity. It was denied to us. We were told “You take this or you leave it. It's a 50% majority. We decided for you.” We were never given the opportunity.

You know, all this agreement does is take away most of our rights—mining, land, mineral rights, water rights. Everything is taken away. It's not a great deal. It's a great deal for the government. It's a great deal for Quebec, but not for the Mohawk people, so I don't feel....

As far as what will happen if it's signed, I don't know. I know many people are angry in the community. There's a lot of tension. There are many questions that were never answered. We would have liked to have gotten answers to these questions, but they were never answered.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank you for appearing before us today. I found your presentations very interesting. I have a few questions to which I would like answers. I felt, Mr. Bonspille, you used rather strong words in your remarks and I would like you to tell me what you would do if you were in my shoes. This afternoon, on clause-by- clause consideration of Bill S-24, I will have to cast a vote on this agreement which was signed by the official leader of your community, Mr. Gabriel.

• 1610

Would it not be an act of paternalism for our committee to tell the representatives chosen by your community that we question their mandate, that we do not believe they have the mandate to negotiate and sign such agreements? Would it not be paternalistic for us to question the legitimacy of your leader in such a process? Would the proper way to proceed not be to make sure, at the next election for the position of leader, to tell Mr. Gabriel that you are not happy with him? That would be the time to settle these differences. It is a bit like asking another nation to come and tell your leader he did not have the authority to sign what he signed.

[English]

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: There were big challenges made on the last election. Appeal processes were put into place. Our interim election code has an appeal process when elections take place. There were many appeals, but they were just ignored. The minister ignored them, the council ignored them—we had no say.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: What you are telling me is that Mr. Gabriel not only has no authority to sign such an agreement but that he is not your legitimate leader. Is that what you are saying?

[English]

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: There was a question. There were appeals in the election he ran in, his last election. Appeals were presented to the Minister of Indian Affairs, but nothing was done.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: What was the basis for those appeals?

[English]

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: I don't have them with me, but there was a whole list of things that were committed during the election. The process was not followed.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: You had a question: would it be paternalistic of you to decide? This is the avenue James Gabriel chose as a leader of our community, as an elected leader. He chose the avenue of having his work reviewed by an outside agency. He had the voting process reviewed by Judge Poitras. He goes to the outside to have it reviewed. Therefore, this is an outside agency. You should have the right to use it to compel him to stop it. If that's the avenue he chose, that's the avenue that'll stop him.

It's obvious that the people back home...we're stuck in a box; we cannot stop it. It is gone already. This is our last resort almost. This is where we're coming to. If it's paternalistic on your part.... If I were in your shoes, I would stop it, obviously, but to be paternalistic.... I'm saying that's the avenue he chose. I didn't choose this avenue. To validate my work, I would go to my own people. The Mohawk people are going to say, yes, that's why we choose to validate his work. We don't need an outside agency to come and prove, yes, you're doing a good job, James Gabriel, or Mohawk Council to say, you're doing a great job.

I keep mentioning James Gabriel as an individual, but there are five other chiefs sitting on council too, Clarence Simon, Gordie Oke, Marie Chéné, Dean Gabriel, Doreen Canatonquin. They're not here today, but they're party to this also. They all agreed to have an outside agency come in and share their work, asking, do you like it, yes or no? Is it good? Tell our people it's good, so we can move on. So if you turn around and tell them, no, it's good, well, that's the avenue they chose.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Bonspille, if Bill S-24 was defeated, if this agreement was rejected, what would your alternative be? Would it be a return to the status quo? Would there be new negotiations? What would it be?

• 1615

[English]

Mr. Steve Bonspille: James Gabriel stated when he put it out to a vote, if it's rejected, we have to go back to the negotiating table and work at it more. That would be the process. The process has already been put in place.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: What would you like to see in Bill S-24 or a future bill that is not in there, and what is in there that should not be there?

[English]

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: The harmonizing agreement would be one. We're civilized people, we get along with our neighbours, we have family married to non-natives. There's no reason to have a harmonizing agreement with the mayor. I feel, as a Mohawk, that we are quite civilized and do get along with people.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But what is the problem with the harmonization agreement?

[English]

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: I would have commented on that if I had seen it, but we've never seen the harmonizing agreement; nobody in the community has. Along with the management agreement, along with a lot of things that are in this agreement, we have never seen the documents. I have asked for it, but we've never seen it. Some information I did get through access to information, but a harmonizing agreement was not one of them. Other than what I've heard from the standing committee, what's actually in it nobody knows. But they wanted us to vote on issues that we've never seen. It was like voting on a blank cheque. They said, we're voting on this as is, but you're not allowed to see the management agreement. A lot of agreements that were inside that land governance agreement code the community never saw.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau...

Mr. Richard Marceau: Maybe Mr. Bonspille could finish his answer.

[English]

Mr. Steve Bonspille: One of the things I don't like about Bill S-24 is the word “adjacent”. It is used throughout the document, especially the harmonization part. There has to be an agreement between the Mayor of Oka and the council as to development on lands that are adjacent. I would like to have seen something broader throughout the territory we claim.

There was an issue back home concerning a mining corporation that's opening up a mine within the Municipality of Oka, but it's also on land that we claim. But these lands are not adjacent to a current Mohawk landholder, let's say, so where does that put our community? This mine is a dangerous thing—I did some work on that on behalf of my community. Are the council's hands tied if this goes through, because the word “adjacent” is in there? Does that mean Mayor Patry here can develop lands in Oka Park because they're currently not adjacent to Kanesatake Mohawk lands?

James Gabriel sent a letter to the Commission de protection du terrritoire agricole, which has the authority to rezone agricultural land in Quebec, stating that we have a land claim going on in that area where Niocan proposes a mine. The mine is practically adjacent to Mohawk lands—practically adjacent. It's very funny that he uses that terminology, because the land agreement says “adjacent”, it doesn't say “practically adjacent”, and now our hands will be tied. So that's one area where I would have liked to see change in this agreement, if I had the chance to change it.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for being here today.

I'd like to start by pointing out one thing. In the last federal election, in November 2000, 57% of all registered voters voted. In fact, only 50% of all eligible voters in the country voted, and the Liberal Party got 42% of those 50% who chose to vote. In other words, they're ruling the country with only 22% of all eligible voters having voted for the Liberal Party, but nobody questions that they do have a mandate to govern; they have a legitimate majority.

You mention the lack of a clear question, or the ambiguity of the question. I have a copy of the question here:

Do you agree to ratify the agreement with respect to the Kanesatake governance of the interim land base and the land governance code?

And it's in both languages.

The point I'd like to make and get your comments on is this. In an election it's not always the number of people who voted, it's the issue of natural justice, which is, were people given access to vote, were they freely allowed to vote? My information is that notices were sent out on September 7, October 4, and October 13 to all members of the Mohawk community who were 18 years of age or older, including non-residents, to notify them of a vote of October 14, to vote on that question, with an advance poll on October 7. The numbers that turned out I agree are disappointingly low, but as long as natural justice has taken place, where people were given ample opportunity to vote, the total number is less of an issue for me.

• 1620

The other thing I'd like to raise is a bit of a contradiction in your presentations. One said the recount was refused, the other said the recount did take place, but we just chose not to participate.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: The recount was asked for at the election, inside the polling station at the time. There are usually procedures, rules, and regulations, and you're allowed to ask for a recount if you aren't sure. We were refused at that time.

Mr. Pat Martin: But then the recount did take place.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes, but I don't know how many months later.

Mr. Pat Martin: It was done by an independent, objective third party.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: No, he was hired by James Gabriel. He was not independent; he was hired and paid.

Mr. Pat Martin: He's a judge, isn't he, the Honourable Lawrence A. Poitras, Q.C.? Is he a judge or a lawyer?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: He's a retired judge.

Mr. Pat Martin: So an outside, third-party arbitrator was sought. I've read the notes under his signature concerning how he undertook the recount, and the process he undertook is pretty hard to find fault with. In fact, you were invited to attend—

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes, I did.

Mr. Pat Martin: —and walked out prior to the count taking place.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes. His mandate was only to do the recount. That was not the only issue that was at stake when the whole flawed process.... It was not just that we wanted a recount; that was not the only thing. That was the only mandate the judge had when I attended the recount.

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand that.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: It was not to review what we had asked him to review, all the different things that took place during that voting. The ballot boxes going—

Mr. Pat Martin: Who are Mrs. Rita Jacobs and Mr. R.E. Johnston?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Mr. Johnston was the electoral officer.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Johnston was the electoral officer, so he witnessed the recount. Mrs. Rita Jacobs?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: A band employee.

Mr. Pat Martin: And Constable Matthew Diabo?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: A peacekeeper.

Mr. Pat Martin: A member of the police. So those were the witnesses to the actual recount.

Did you want to add something, Mr. Bonspille?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Yes. You were mentioning natural justice, notices being sent out, being inclusive, instead of being exclusive, and the attempts being made by council. But you're talking of a European concept in Kanesatake.

Mr. Pat Martin: Natural justice, I don't think, is—

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Well, Mohawk procedure is by consensus. It's not simple majority.

Mr. Pat Martin: So 50% plus one is not the majority.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Fifty percent does not work, no. Majority means the majority of the people of Kanesatake want this—that's a majority. It's not, well, we had ten people come to the meeting, seven said yes, so.... The whole community—

Mr. Pat Martin: But how do you know what the rest of the community wants? All we have is your word and an anecdotal—

Mr. Steve Bonspille: All I have is James Gabriel's word—

Mr. Pat Martin: You have marked ballots here that have been counted by an objective third party.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I'm not questioning the ballots.

Mr. Pat Martin: So you're saying you represent a larger group of people, who didn't vote, but disagree. How do we know that?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Mr. Gabriel, back home in Kanesatake, can answer for there being a large section of our community that didn't vote, which he belongs to. But I would just like to point out—

Mr. Pat Martin: That's quite a leap of faith for you to be speaking for people who chose not to vote. How do we know what their intentions were if they chose not to express their intentions?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: You mentioned that notices were sent out to everybody. It's a large leap of faith to say, well, yes, everyone got a notice; all 1,400 eligible voters got a notice. How the heck do I know? I don't know that. Maybe they only sent it out to select individuals who they knew would vote yes. How do I know?

Mr. Pat Martin: Is that what you're saying? Is that your testimony here today?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I'm saying, how do I know?

Mr. Pat Martin: Are you accusing them of not sending it to...?

• 1625

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I'm putting it into question. How would I know? You're accusing me of saying—

Mr. Pat Martin: No, I'm not accusing anybody. Are you saying—

Mr. Steve Bonspille: You're questioning me. It's the same thing. It's on the same line, sir.

Mr. Pat Martin: I just don't know if you have a right to speak on behalf of people who chose not to vote. How do you know the voting intentions of those people who chose not to vote? It's a great leap of faith. It's an anecdotal sort of thing.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: I can answer part of that. I do know I did get phone calls from people living in B.C., in New Brunswick, who never got their ballots, but who requested their ballots. We met with Mr. Johnston prior to the election and asked where the rules and regulations were for this, where the appeal process was. He said he didn't have those things.

We told him we had people from New Brunswick who had been calling and were, first of all, waiting for their papers to come in, in order to look at the agreement. They never got them.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, who says who is and who is not a member of the community? Who has the right to determine if you are a member or you are not a member?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: The band has the list—

Mr. Pat Martin: The band has the list.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: —but Indian Affairs—

Mr. Pat Martin: How many people are on that list? Are there 1,450?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: On that list, in total?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I would say there are approximately 2,000 or 2,100, or something like that.

Mr. Pat Martin: So of those, about 1,450 would be 18 years of age or older.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: According to the 1998 stats, 1,450 people were. That's what the figure was for the election in 1998. Those were the statistics.

Mr. Pat Martin: Is that how many letters went out? I guess we could ask—

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: We don't know.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I don't know. I didn't send the letters out.

Mr. Pat Martin: We could ask the next presenter.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: You can ask James, because I don't know.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: The point, too, is that the people—Mr. Nault, James Gabriel, and council—made the decision for us with a simple majority of participants, not of members of the whole band. It was the members—

Mr. Pat Martin: —who chose to vote.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes, the participants, those who participated. That was not decided by the community. When there's such a big issue, when there's a lot at stake concerning our lands, we should have that say, like any other community across the country. They have their say over what a majority of the vote should be. In Quebec, they want to change it, too. They're having big trouble with 50% plus one.

Mr. Pat Martin: Most people in Quebec would argue 50% plus one is a majority.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: But the question is—

The Chair: Thank you. You've gone over the seven minutes.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I probably won't take my full seven, so I'm more than happy to give my colleague here the rest of what I have.

I have a couple of questions, Mr. Bonspille and Ms. Bonspille. I've heard a lot about the process. Most of what you had to say was about what you considered to be a flawed process, right from the community not having an opportunity to say whether it in fact should be 50% plus one. We talked about a process with respect to non-residents voting. I've been looking at this more from the angle of the legislation itself, the act itself. You also talked about the Senate and not the House, and all the rest of the process.

There are some things in the act that I'd like to ask you about. Monsieur Marceau had indicated what you didn't like in the piece of legislation, and you said it was one word, “adjacent” lands, in this piece of legislation.

First of all, have you read all of the clauses and all of the salient points of the legislation?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I read what was given out at our band council office. That was Bill S-24.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's it, yes. Bill S-24 is the piece of legislation we're dealing with.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Yes, that's what I read.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: In this legislation, I'd like to read something and just have you answer to it. In clause 7, “Jurisdiction”, for example, it says:

(1) The Mohawks of Kanesatake have jurisdiction to make laws in relation to the use and development of the lands in the Kanesatake Mohawk interim land base, including in relation to

—and I would like to quote these and have you tell me where you wouldn't agree—

(a) the health and quality of life of residents;

Do you agree that this is a good thing?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Next:

(b) the protection and management of wildlife and fish;

That's a good thing that you would have as members of the band in terms of opportunity?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: That's obvious.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Carrying on:

(c) the observance of law and order and the prevention of disorderly conduct and nuisances;

That would be your peacekeeping. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Yes, we have our police station.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Next:

(d) the prevention of trespass, including entry onto, or occupation of, the lands without lawful authority;

Do you agree that this is a good thing for you to have jurisdiction over?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Trespassing, yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What about the next paragraph:

(e) residency;

As a band, you would now have jurisdiction over the residency of the—

Mr. Steve Bonspille: We've always had it.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: We get to make our own membership right now.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Next:

(f) fire safety and fire protection services;

Do you agree that this is a good service to be provided with and to have jurisdiction over?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Sure.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: We don't need an agreement to have these things. We have a police station already.

• 1630

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but under clause 5 of this bill, you now have—are you ready for this?—the right to:

(a) acquire and hold property;

(b) enter into contracts or agreements;

(c) borrow money;

(d) expend and invest money;

(e) be a party to legal proceedings; and

(f) do any other thing that is conducive to the exercise of the rights, powers and privileges associated with that capacity.

Based on what I just quoted there, do you agree that is a good governance to have, a good jurisdiction to have within the band?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I believe parts of it are, such as legal proceedings. But to be a party to legal proceedings? What exactly does “legal proceedings” mean? Does that mean we can sue and be sued? Does it mean a financial institution can take control of Mohawk territory in lieu of debt?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but it also says in this bill, if you go back—

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I just want to know.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's a very good question. But going back to the beginning of the bill, subclause 3(2) also says:

This Act does not address any aboriginal or treaty rights of the Mohawks of Kanesatake. Nothing in this act is intended either to prejudice such rights or to represent a recognition of such rights....

So in terms of anything previous, this does not deal with treaty rights at all. Is one of your major concerns with this piece of legislation that it would have an impact on the treaty rights?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: That's one of the concerns. But I would just say that when I read the parts with regard to jurisdiction, most of them are common sense. Who doesn't want peace and quiet in their community? Who wouldn't want policing? Who wouldn't want—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This has expanded some of those rights—

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Yes, there have been expansions, sure.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They're not rights that you do not have now, but expanded rights.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: But when it comes to the right to.... Currently, a Mohawk person cannot sell their land to a non-native person. We're here to hopefully expand our land base in the future. Should the council or an individual band member enter into some sort of an arrangement with a financial institution and put up their land as collateral or mortgage our land, and then fail to make a payment or do not live up to their part of the deal, I'm just wondering if that means the financial institution will take control of that property, which used to be Mohawk property?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: As I understand it, it doesn't take control of previous lands. These are expanded lands. Is that not the case?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Previous lands.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is that not the case, though? Do I not understand this correctly? It doesn't take into effect any of the previous lands or land base. This is an expanded land base.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: It's an expanded land base.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, so any of the previous land base would not fall into that jurisdiction that you're talking about. Is that correct?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: That's what it says on the—

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: But it takes away any water rights, any mineral rights. Anything under the ground will be taken away from us under this agreement, if I understand it right. There are a lot of things that I don't....

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have you read this agreement?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have you read it clause by clause?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you have any listing of the areas in the agreement about which you really have some serious concerns? You've brought two valid concerns to the table. One is the “adjacent” clause. The other talks about minerals and mines.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes, the land and mineral rights, water rights, rights over anything that is under the ground, according to this agreement. Also—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have you done a critique on this at all?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: No, I haven't. I don't have it with me.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Part of the thing that I don't like...and I did read it. I was given the agreement from our council. It was the very first one they put out in June. I then read the bill, which I only got last week from our council office. They mention Mohawk neighbouring lands, but when you go through the agreement they gave us in June, it doesn't say anything about Mohawk neighbouring lands anywhere in the definitions. The words “Mohawk neighbouring lands” only appear here.

It appears there are two sets of laws that will be applied to the Mohawk people. The people who live in the village of Oka will be subject to—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Bonspille, she's going to cut me off really fast, and I have two very quick questions.

You mentioned the other members of the council. We have the grand chief, and then we have five other members of the council. Was it the unanimous decision of the council to take this forward?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Maybe James could answer that. I don't know. It's only James' signature on the agreement.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but you're pretty close to the community. You have the ear of the community. I will ask—

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: They have to have a quorum in council to decide that kind of thing.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They have to have a majority—

Mr. Steve Bonspille: They need to have a quorum.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: —but was there any opposition at all in the council itself? Do you know?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: I was told by one of the chiefs—today, in fact—that on the morning of June 21, 2000, this individual did not know what was going on. They were just called up to our community gym: “Get up here. There's a signing going to happen.”

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, this is the last question I have—and I'll ask Mr. Gabriel about that.

You mentioned non-residents. There were sixty-some-odd votes that were cast by non-residents. You object to that. You do not feel non-residents.... Although you said you had calls from people from New Brunswick and B.C. who never received—

• 1635

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: I would get calls from people asking why they didn't receive...some received the packages and not the ballots.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So you're saying non-residents should have had—

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: No, a lot of them didn't receive the ballots. This was just one of the things in the process itself. People got some of the things, but nobody got the ballots.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So you're saying that those people who didn't get ballots in New Brunswick really should have had ballots.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Well, they asked for them and were entitled to them, according to the way they were—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Even if they're not residents?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes, but they took...that was agreed upon.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: In band council elections, are non-residents allowed to vote?

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Yes, they are.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: You've used up your seven minutes. You're at eight minutes now, so you don't have any time to give away.

Mr. Bagnell, please.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): What do you want me to do? Should I be short so that we can get to other witnesses?

The Chair: Actually, this is your seven-minute round also, and then we'll start the three-minute back-and-forth.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

All the parties are very glad you have come, and there have been very good questions from the other parties. I'm not disagreeing with any of the questions. I thought they were very good.

For years, I've always had an interest in the governance of the Iroquois Confederacy. In fact, I think part of it had an effect on the American Constitution. Just a few weeks ago, a couple of us spoke in the House, and the point I was trying to make is that our form of governance isn't necessarily the one and only form. Obviously, it doesn't solve all the problems, and we should always look around for other solutions. Nevertheless, in day-to-day decisions, we have to deal with governments as they are at present, with who is allowed to vote, and with what processes are presently in place for making decisions.

I'd basically like to go on the same line of questioning that Rick did, and that is related to...and I'd be happy to read the rest of your presentation—the part you didn't actually get to say—if you give me a copy.

Basically, as Rick said, in your opening presentations, neither of you really said anything that was wrong with this particular bill. You never suggested that there's any part of the bill that doesn't, at least incrementally, move forward some more powers for the Mohawks of Kanesatake. I have a whole bunch of things I could talk to you about, explaining processes and things on the process questions, because you both talked about process.

I'm more interested in substantive things. I think my colleagues have brought up some of the process questions, but if you want to use the rest of my time, I'd really be interested in what is actually wrong with this bill, in how we could improve it, and in whether or not there's anything that doesn't at least move forward.

Obviously, the bill is not perfect. It's only one that is supposed to be an incremental step in a long process. But what substantive improvements could be made to this, or what are your problems with this bill technically, as it's written?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: I do know no one received the bill itself in the community. I think there was an announcement sent out, saying there would be some copies at the band office, but not all the people who voted off-reserve.... I don't know if James would have the answer to that. They were supposed to be mailed out, but the rest of the community didn't get it. Maybe 80% of the community don't have it, except for those who went to get it. But for off-reserve people, like those living in California, nobody received this, so they don't really know what's in the bill itself.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: My understanding is that there were consultation sessions—and I think Steve referred to them. I think there might have been actually fifty on the concepts, and obviously the wording reflects those concepts. In all the years I've been involved in all levels of government, I've never seen something with such an exhaustive consultation process as fifty opportunities to find out what the issues are. What I'm interested in is the topics and concepts presented and talked about in those many meetings. What concepts do you think are bad to move forward with in this particular proposal, in the agreement that's been in place?

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: I think the people need more time to go over that bill itself, over the agreement itself. There are a lot of documents that were never included. People could have had that opportunity to at least read it. The process should be redone at a pace whereby the people can get all the information that's needed. The management agreement, the KODC—all those documents were never included. I think this bill should not be passed until at least most of the documents are given to the community. That would be one—

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Just before Steven goes on, then, you don't have any substantive problems with individual items that this bill is moving forward.

• 1640

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Yes, with the whole bill itself. I don't agree with the whole bill itself at all. I don't feel it recognizes our treaty rights or our aboriginal rights. I don't feel it's a bill that should be passed.

Mr. Steve Bonspille: Well, on the technical components of this bill, as I stated earlier, there was the wording of “adjacent”. I have a big problem with that, because we already have a problem brewing because of that wording. It puts us behind the eight ball.

The other problem is clarification on legal proceedings—land transfers or bad debt and stuff like that. What are the ramifications of that jurisdiction?

I'm not a lawyer. They always bring their lawyer with them, but I can't afford to bring a lawyer with me. So I just read it as a plain, ordinary citizen. That's how I read it. Maybe to have those concepts further explained, the legal ramifications of those jurisdictional areas that we now would have control over, have them further explained as to what they really entail, the depth of them.... People like myself have questions on those that I would like to have answered. I have concerns about them.

The other one is the part of harmonization, as Pearl stated. Of course, we've lived harmoniously with our neighbours for numbers of years. I grew up playing hockey with most of the French kids in the village of Oka. I have a lot of friends down there. We conduct commerce back and forth. Most of the community's money is spent buying things in that village of Oka. That's the social side. But on the side of, let's say, housing, zoning, municipal laws, where do those come in to play?

People were told during these workshops.... I have people who live in the village of Oka who told me, when I went to a workshop, about a case that was lost at Quebec court. Mr. Jean-Rock Simon lost his case, because he built a two- or three-story building right in the middle of Oka. The municipality took him to court and he lost. The reason he lost is that the court said it's a legal vacuum in Kanesatake. We don't know which laws apply, so municipal laws apply. At these workshops some of these people were told that we lost the Jean-Rock Simon case because we couldn't make our own laws.

If we do not pass this bill...this bill will give us the power to override municipal laws and municipal laws will not apply on Mohawk lands. Period. So you're leaving and you say okay, that's great. Then you read the final agreement. There's a “however” and a “but” at the end of those words, which they fail to tell people, saying, well, listen, if the Jean-Rock Simon case was so important...we lost it.

Now we're having this land agreement, which reflects why we lost the decision. We didn't have our own laws in place that were recognized by Quebec or Canada. How come now that we have this agreement passed and it's supposed to address that issue, Mr. Jean-Rock Simon still cannot build that complex in the village of Oka today? He still can't. Even if the bill passes—he's going to say “Yahoo, I can start my building again”. No, you can't, because we have to harmonize our laws. This basically means we're going to take municipal laws, because we don't have our own bylaws down there in the village of Oka. So the easiest thing to do is to harmonize or make laws consistent—taking municipal bylaws and just saying yes, they apply everywhere.

We have to be good neighbours. I believe in being good neighbours, but I also believe in the sovereignty of the Mohawk Nation in our affairs, to do what we want in our territory, on our own lands, without answering to the Mayor of Oka. That's what I also believe. This agreement doesn't push that any further. That's what I would have liked to have seen.

As I said, I have no problem with the people in the village of Oka. I get along fine with them. I don't know of any...except the Jean-Rock Simon case. People who live in the village of Oka, most of their homes on little lots anyway. What are they going to do with the tiny lots? It still has an effect on the road plus the future development of our lands.

• 1645

Well, it gives the municipality a say in our affairs now. What can we do? If our lands touch municipal lands per se we have to get permission from the mayor. Can we do this or can we not?

A good example is the Mohawk immersion school that was built in Kanesatake. People are under the impression that, yes, this is being built on Mohawk land. For sure, we all know it's Mohawk territory, Mohawk land. But in March the municipal council of Oka passed a bylaw—a rezoning law—rezoning that area where the school is built so that a school could be build there. So we're saying how the heck can the municipality of Oka...? Why do they have a say where our school is being built? Doesn't that belong to us?

Well, I was never told, no, it's still municipal land. Why are they rezoning it? It must be municipal land if they're rezoning it. It's not Mohawk land. So what's the story with that? I don't know. There are all kinds of little issues that have to be addressed. That's just one of them.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: I also find that the whole land base in this agreement, besides those few houses that have mould in them that were bought back.... They spent $38 million buying back those houses that went under KODC—the corporation.

Other than that, one of the recommendations from Judge Paul, at the beginning of the negotiations when Bernard Roy was the negotiator, was for the governments to deal in good faith with the Mohawks concerning the lands. He recommended that at a minimum Oka Park be returned to the Mohawk's title. Oka Park, Blue Mountain, south of 344—what was the other park? Those were the minimum lands that should have been dealt with immediately.

But none of that was done. There is nothing in here except for those houses. There are lawsuits going on right now with KODC concerning those houses. A lot of them had mould in them. There were millions and millions spent on it. There are big problems with the whole KODC—that whole land.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Because everyone has gone over their time, I don't think, to be fair to the other people who will be speaking, that we'll do the second round, if that's okay with the committee.

So I'd like to thank you very much for enlightening the committee. I'll give a few minutes to the next group to set up.

Thank you, Mr. Bonspille and Ms. Bonspille.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: I have copies of the speech if anyone.... Do I pass it around or do I give it to someone?

The Chair: You give the material to the clerk, because we have to get them translated before we can distribute them to the committee members.

Ms. Pearl Bonspille: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

So if we can get the other witnesses before the committee, we'll just give you a few minutes to set up.

We have a few minutes. Stretch your legs if you want.

• 1649

• 1652

The Chair: In the interest of time, we shall get on with this as soon as possible.

I understand we have two very different witnesses appearing before us at the same time. Because of time restraints, we have asked whether they could speak at the same time so that the members feel comfortable in asking either one questions. It's just that we would have been running into a loss of time, because we also have a vote coming later. I notice we're missing one member now, so maybe there will be fewer questions.

I'm not sure who is going to start first. Maybe we'll start with Mayor Patry. If you can do your five-minute presentation, we'll ask Mr. Gabriel to do his. Then the questions will be directed at either witness.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Patry (Mayor, City of Oka): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I would like to introduce to you one of my city councillors, Mr. Yves Renaud, who has accompanied me today to help me answer your questions, if you have any.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

As I recently did so before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I wish today to once again repeat my observations regarding the passage of the act implementing the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Agreement and the Land Governance Code that the Mohawks of Kanesatake voted in favour of.

I will not hide from you that this is a decision that gives us the greatest satisfaction and pleasure. As mayor of the municipality of Oka, I interpreted this decision made by our Mohawk neighbours of Kanesatake as a step in the right direction.

Taking note of the vote in favour of the agreement by our Mohawk neighbours of Kanesatake, we understood that this was an expression of a change of direction: we were henceforth going to work together on a new footing towards the development of our respective communities.

• 1655

This agreement offers a new framework to both our communities, a framework that took years to establish because of the crisis that ripped us apart ten years ago already. I wish to make you aware that at every opportunity I have stressed the need, with all my fellow citizens of Oka, to do our utmost to use the channels of communication between our communities that this agreement has opened up.

But there is more to it still. This agreement gives us the means to achieve harmonious regional development, which is a priority that we all share in Oka and Kanesatake. No one in Oka wants to relive the crisis we suffered through in the early 1990s. This crisis made the headlines all over the world and it also left deep scars in the people of Oka and Kanesatake.

The trauma we suffered left wounds that took a long time to heal. We have since then learned that an open and frank dialogue between our two communities would have allowed us to avoid the confrontation that tore through our families. It is our community and that of the Mohawks that suffered the consequences of this crisis, and we could have avoided it.

That does not however mean that we have recovered from all of our injuries. There still are divisions, but the majority of Mohawks of Kanesatake and of citizens of Oka who rub shoulders with each other every day never again want to relive the violent shock of the 1990 crisis.

We therefore let the federal government and the Mohawks of Kanesatake negotiate amongst themselves. The process took ten years of discussions and numerous consultations. It was a long and sometimes difficult one, but as the saying goes: all comes well to he who waits.

Thanks to numerous initiatives flowing from our respective communities, we were able to create in the region a favourable climate for economic development. In Oka, over the last ten years, we have gone into overdrive in order to build something beautiful and welcoming. We had to roll up our sleeves and find effective solutions. Ironically, the events of the summer of 1990 aroused the curiosity of some who had followed media coverage of the events. They came to the area and were happy to discover our communities and the various attractions of the region.

The events of the summer of 1990 have gone down in history and served as a lesson for all. Those who lived through the crisis have drawn lessons from it. We no longer want confrontation. We want an ongoing dialogue of mutual respect, and this will is deeply entrenched in our community.

Today, the Mohawk people of Kanesatake and the residents of Oka will have the opportunity to work together in the development of our communities. In my opinion, it is an opportunity that we must not let get away. I have tremendous respect for Grand Mohawk Chief James Gabriel. We have met several times, and every time I have been surprised by the extent to which we are on the same wave length and share a common vision. I believe that our two communities wish to encourage the establishment of a climate that is favourable to development.

The municipality supported the initiative of the government of Canada and of Mohawk leaders that led to the agreement adopted by the Mohawk people of Kanesatake. What we most appreciated was the seriousness with which this agreement was negotiated, and I am thinking more particularly of the democratic process surrounding its ratification.

Oka's municipal council and the majority of citizens of our municipality have always maintained that it was up to the people of Kanesatake to decide on their future. The Mohawks of Kanesatake know what is best for them and we respect their decision.

As for us, our intention is to foster cooperation. The Kanesatake land management agreement of the Mohawk community, that was ratified by the Mohawk people, sets out the legal context surrounding the use of lands in the vicinity of the village of Oka.

To our minds, in Oka, the Canadian government, by recognizing the governance powers that the Mohawks will henceforth exercise on the Kanesatake interim land base, favours dialogue rather than legal confrontation before the courts. The clause dealing with municipal regulations harmonization fits that direction. It in effect defines a framework that will, in the future, foster issue resolution rather than legal wrangling, as sometimes happened in the past.

• 1700

Despite the apparently cumbersome harmonization process, we are confident that the parties, that each have at heart the welfare of both communities, will make the necessary efforts to ensure its fulfilment, in the interests of all. It is a simple matter of common sense.

As responsible representatives, it was and is our duty to encourage dialogue and to build solid foundations that will allow both the residents of Oka and the people of Kanesatake to ensure the harmonious development of the region.

In conclusion, I am more than ever convinced that we have turned the page with this agreement. It is time to turn our attention to the future, together.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mayor Patry.

Chief James Gabriel.

Grand Chief James Gabriel (Mohawk Council of Kanesatake): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Sékon sewakewkon.

Good afternoon, members of the committee and Madam Chair.

Feel free to cut me off. I might have a tendency to run a little bit long also, but in politics, that's how it is.

I'd just like to explain a little bit about myself, as to who I am and what my function is as a grand chief. I've had the opportunity to make the sales pitch to a lot of people here on this committee—members of the opposition, members of Parliament.

I was first elected to council in 1995. I was a lot younger back then, and a lot more naive as to the workings of political systems. In January 1996, the former grand chief was removed from office. I was appointed to the position of interim grand chief in that month. In June 1996, I ran to fill the vacancy for the position of grand chief and was elected as grand chief. I held that position for the two remaining years of the mandate, from 1995. In 1998, I ran for the position of grand chief and was successful in that position.

So in the last five years, I've gone through three elections and one appointment by the remaining chiefs of the council at that time, in a democratic process that I didn't necessarily believe in or want to be a part of during the early 1990s. From what I saw from my perspective, the democratic system was not our way. As Mr. Bonspille pointed out, we have our own system of government, our own political structure.

We're fortunate to have some scholars here with us, who have studied history and know that Benjamin Franklin based a lot of his work on the American Constitution on the Iroquois Confederacy's constitution. I think that was raised again by Mr. Bonspille.

I think being part of a democratic system is a challenge, and there's no question about that. Moving away from our traditional form of government to an elective system is a very difficult choice.

This choice was made under an interim council, post-1990, with approximately 96% of the population supporting the move toward a democratic system in 1991-92. There again, we had the difficulty of determining where our traditional people fit in that process.

I'm very happy and very honoured to see David Gabriel here with us today. He is a very well-respected leader of our community, on our traditional side. I'm very happy to see him here. I hope that in the future he will be given the opportunity, and be willing, to represent his people, as is our custom, by consensus, with the agreement of everybody in the longhouse, to speak and be given the opportunity to give his voice to this process.

That being said, this agreement, Bill S-24 and the legislation, is a critical milestone for Kanesatake. It will enable us to take control of our future, to govern ourselves and our interim land base, to bring much needed social and economic stability and security to Kanesatake, and ensure future prosperity.

I know that some of the presentations made by the witnesses today are alleging that this council hasn't supported the language, hasn't supported the culture, and hasn't made enough initiatives with regard to employment.

One of the difficulties we see, without a clearly defined land base or set of rules that govern, or jurisdiction that's clearly set out in law, is how do you act on your jurisdiction? How do you enforce your laws, move forward, stimulate the economy, and attract investors into your community, while at the same time making sure that people who are in desperate need don't mortgage their property and sell off reserve lands?

• 1705

That has happened in many places in the United States, where ownership was in fee simple, people were able to put their land up as a guarantee, mortgage it to the banks, and wealthy people ended up grabbing bits and pieces of reserve lands.

This is not something we want to see. Our ancestors, our forefathers, our people, our elders, have fought long and hard to preserve this land. We need that land to stay with our people and not be mortgaged out, sold or bartered. So those are some of the difficulties we see.

We know, as I pointed out earlier, that the Mohawk Nation, along with the other five nations of the Iroquois or Haudenosaunee Confederacy, is steeped in democratic tradition. As I said earlier, many classical scholars have marvelled at the sophisticated political structure of the Iroquois Confederacy, which was formed over 600 years ago.

As I said, Benjamin Franklin, one of the drafters of the United States Constitution, was a scholar of the Iroquois political structure and treaties, and was inspired by our own people in his work on the American Constitution.

As the council of a community that is a member of the Mohawk Nation, we're committed to the rule of law, to democracy, accountability, and transparency. Unfortunately, due to the legal uncertainties surrounding the legal status of Kanesatake and Mohawk lands, our community has often been labelled a legal vacuum, as was pointed out by Mr. Bonspille a little earlier.

The rule of law has suffered, as a result. Kanesatake has never been an Indian reserve, and our people have long rejected the antiquated and paternalistic model imposed by the Indian Act.

The lack of a recognized legal status has meant that the unique status of our lands has not been respected, and the legal elected governing body for the Mohawks of Kanesatake, the Mohawk Council, has never had recognized law-making powers. This translates into a very difficult situation, when we talk about our police force enforcing community laws. We know, based on the status of our lands, that if the community laws, as they exist today, are challenged in court, they will not stand, because governments at various levels dispute our ability to enforce those laws under the current regime.

This bill, Bill S-24, the land governance agreement and code, rectifies that situation. It also gives community members the opportunity, when we enact law, to speak on it. They will have the opportunity to say what the impact of this law will be, how it will affect them, and whether they think it's good or not. They'll have the opportunity to deal with that law in a public forum.

The situation of having a legal vacuum has definitely impeded the development of our economy and frustrated community members, who have been unable to pursue opportunities in the community, in the resulting vacuum of authority.

Simply put, it's impossible for a community to develop and prosper when its government cannot exercise governing powers and the legal status of its land base is unclear. Such a vacuum is counterproductive to stability and lends itself to confusion, lawlessness, and anarchy.

The lack of stability, the lack of legal recognition, and centuries of government failure to address or even listen to our land-related concerns were key failings that led to the Oka crisis in 1990. I believe the crisis of 1990 was the culmination of years of lack of opportunity and marginalization in Kanesatake.

Since the council of the day could not effectively exercise its mandate, it became easy for the voices of the community to be ignored. It became easy for persons, without mandates from the people, to claim to speak on their behalf.

The Oka crisis was about protection of our lands, recognition of our long-standing grievances, and defending our rights. Some of the reasons it occurred were because our community's voice was not being heard and the Mohawk council of the day could not effectively govern.

Following the Oka crisis, the Mohawks of Kanesatake and the crown, in right of Canada, began negotiating solutions to our outstanding grievances. As it was stated earlier, there was the appointment of Bernard Roy, and Judge Rejean Paul was mediator at the time. They were very difficult times after 1990. We were trying to get a very large process in gear and resolve all the problems at the same time, yet were getting bogged down in who was going to be speaking, what the minutes were, and whether we agreed on the minutes. We got bogged down in the process and didn't deal with the substance of the grievances.

In this process, we have chosen to go incrementally and deal with the issues that affect our people on a day-to-day basis. How do we get our language centre funded, even though it's not covered by regular programming? How do we generate revenue to cover, where regular programming from the Department of Indian Affairs does not fill in? These are the issues we have to deal with.

• 1710

We don't claim this agreement will solve all the problems all the time for ever and ever. We said we have to go at a pace that our community is ready for. We have to deal with issues that make a difference in the short term while keeping the long-term goal of a treaty in sight. We don't forsake our aboriginal or treaty rights in this agreement, nor do we ever intend to. That's one of the key elements of this agreement: we do not forsake our rights.

We know there's a lot more work to do out there. We know this does not solve every problem that could certainly arise. As a community, as a young democracy, we are growing. We are facing problems. Yes, there are divisions; nobody's going to deny that fact. Some people claim that since I've been there, the divisions have gotten exponentially worse. Unfortunately, or fortunately, because we have a democratic process, in the problems or divisions that do exist, people are free to voice their opinions.

That wasn't always the case. Post-1990 was not a pretty place in Kanesatake. Those of us living there know what we went through. We know the problems that occurred. We know the problems that still exist today, and I can illustrate the problem we face.

In the early to mid-1990s, the sound of gunfire in the community was so commonplace that we no longer reacted to it. It was an everyday occurrence. You could hear shots being fired. You could hear automatic weapons being discharged any day of the week, any hour of the day. Hey, it was normal back then.

If there was a problem, we couldn't call on the SQ. They wouldn't come to our territory, and they wouldn't patrol it. They wouldn't deal with the issues. Many complaints were filed. Neighbours in the village or municipality of Oka filed complaints of bullets landing on their property, going through their door or their garage, whatever the case may be, yet that problem was never contained.

In 1996, under the council of that time, which I was fortunate to be a part of, we asked the people for a mandate to negotiate a policing agreement. This was done at a public meeting in, I believe, May 1996. From there we started negotiating a tripartite policing agreement with Quebec and Canada, and the first interim agreement was reached in December 1996.

Our police force started working in February or March of 1997, and fortunately they are a full-fledged police force. The officers are fully trained, and they enforce all applicable laws—the Criminal Code, highway safety code, issues that a lot of people take for granted on a day-to-day basis, most often when they're getting stopped for speeding or whatever the case may be.

These are some of the issues that are clearly there. I apologize for running over the time limit, but it is a very heartfelt issue for me in being a leader of a community and trying to bring it forward, and looking back at where we've come from and what our ancestors have done. Trying to bring that altogether and fit it on paper is not an easy task.

Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

I'll try to be equally strict with everyone with this round of questioning.

Mrs. Hinton, I guess you can start for the Canadian Alliance.

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): It has been a very interesting process this afternoon, and I'm glad to have participated in it. But I can't help but feel that I'm in the same position as someone looking through the door of an oven watching a cake come up. I don't have all the ingredients. I don't know exactly how this is going to work out, and I have a lot of very hard, unanswered questions.

I have severe questions about the harmonization agreement, too, and I would like way more information than I currently have.

The other thing I feel the strongest about is the fact that this went through the Senate. The Senate is not an elected body; Parliament is, and I think that's the way it should have gone. I will remain thinking that way from here on in.

I have listened to some very interesting things today, and I wonder if you might be able to answer a couple of questions. Why do you think so few Mohawk community members participated in the ratification vote, and why do you think half of the voters oppose this agreement? If my understanding is correct, you won this by two votes.

Grand Chief James Gabriel: The fact that there's a low participation in this land governance agreement ratification vote is, I would say, representative of the attendance we've had at council elections over the last five to six years, or since 1991-92. We're looking overall at usually 30% to 40% of the population turning out for general elections of the council.

• 1715

It's very similar in other Mohawk communities. The federal government was fortunate enough to use some of the statistics in the federal government. Voter apathy is a problem. Where our problem is compounded is in the fact that our traditional people do not participate in council elections. The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake is seen as an extension of the federal government, as being an Indian Act council, as being the right hand of the Minister of Indian Affairs. That has always been the opinion of our people.

So it was a huge leap of faith to move to a democratic system, which we've done. We've gone through several elections. As you've seen in the documentation that was provided, people are out campaigning against this agreement, exercising their democratic right to participate and to speak freely, to get involved in the process, and to voice their opinions contrary to what we're saying. That's a wonderful experience for a young democracy. I think low voter turnout is going to be a problem in first nations communities where you have a traditional government and, for lack of a better word, an Indian Act government or bands under the Indian Act.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: One of the things that came out today in the conversation was a question by one of the witnesses who asked whether or not we would be willing to delay this, or they're asking us to delay it and to go out to the actual community and ask directly of the membership there. Would you have any objection to that?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: One problem I have with that as an elected official is that I do view it as paternalistic. We've been trying to get away from the great white father image of the Canadian government and deal on an equal footing with the Government of Canada. So to say, well, we don't really believe the process you went through is all that it's cracked up to be; we want to see for ourselves what's really out there....

Some of the concerns raised are that all those people unknown to us out there, living off the territory, shouldn't be a part of this process, while 95% of the people living in the territory of Kanesatake voted against it. Yet every election since 1991, people off reserve or off the territory have been participating in the votes. The system that was put in place is not my choice. We're living with a democratic system that was brought by the people in 1991. We have to abide by that.

My colleagues and respected leader from the traditional government explained that there will be the sun coming up the day after the legislation is passed. We'll have to deal with it. We'll have to move forward. We'll have to work hard. Whether the agreement passes or doesn't pass through legislation, gets ratified, we as a community have a lot of work to do.

The way I see this process, the more delays we encounter is another day waiting for something better to come up and dealing with the status quo, where we know our community programs are underfunded. Our population growth way exceeds the revenues that are coming into our community. There's no way to meet the two ends based on regular Department of Indian Affairs programs. We have to become self-sufficient.

I know the word “self-government” was being thrown around. I've heard it many times. The self-government policy as defined by the Department of Indian Affairs is not what we're looking at. Our right to determine our own future is what we're talking about. The right of Mohawk people, the Mohawk nation, to determine their own future...that's what we're looking for. This agreement recognizes our jurisdiction to take care of our people, to introduce law, to move forward, and that's what I see as moving forward.

Mr. Reed Elley: I have a very short question.

The Chair: You have a minute.

Mr. Reed Elley: This looks like a work in progress. You talk about a land governance code. You talk about a harmonization agreement. Will there be opportunity for both the people of Oka and the Mohawk to actually take part in the establishment of the land governance code and the harmonization agreement so that you will bring your people along with you?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: In regard to the land governance code, it's an internal document that flows from the comments that were made during the consultation period. People were concerned about the jurisdiction that's recognized and underneath the council. They said, we want regulations that determine how this council governs itself. The implementation or the development of the land governance agreement and how it's implemented—we've started that in regard to looking at a development plan. How are we going to manage our territory?

• 1720

In regard to the municipalities of Oka's involvement in this process, it's restricted to the harmonization sections of the agreement. We all understand that what they do in their area is their business; what we do in our area is our business. But, as was stated earlier, there has to be some mechanism so that the two communities can get along. Even the witnesses speaking are saying, we get along well with our neighbours in the village; there's not a problem there. Why do we need this harmonization?

Mr. Reed Elley: You're not answering my question, Chief, and I'd like the mayor to answer it too. Will there be opportunity in the future—because some of your people are saying they haven't seen this code; they don't know what the harmonization agreement is—for both the people of Oka and the people of Kanesatake to have input into that process as it develops?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: I think our people have seen the land code. That's included in the agreement. It was ratified at the same time as the land governance agreement—the land code, which is our internal regulation, so to speak. The harmonization agreement, as—

Mr. Reed Elley: It's ongoing?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: It's ongoing. The harmonization discussions cannot take place until the land governance agreement is in effect. So it's one step at a time. There comes a land governance agreement; there comes legislation that puts into effect the land governance agreement, and then harmonization discussions have to occur.

Mr. Reed Elley: Will your people have an opportunity to have input into that? That's the question.

Grand Chief James Gabriel: That's the question. Our people will have the opportunity to see what exactly is going on in regard to harmonization. I think, moreover, that the people that are living in the village of Oka will see the results of how they're affected by that process, and their input will be critical. Who else to ask than the people who are most affected?

One of the elements that was spoken to this afternoon was the term “adjacent lands”. We're bound by the agreement to harmonize our community laws with municipal bylaws in the village of Oka. Now the point was raised that this is too limiting. Rather than have just adjacent lands, we would rather have all the lands harmonized with the village of Oka, which is what I gathered from the testimony this afternoon.

As a Mohawk people, it's unacceptable that municipal laws apply all over our territory, and we don't have a say over that. We have the right to determine our own laws, to implement them, and to enforce them. But in this century we have to look at who's living beside us in adjacent lands—lands right beside us in the village of Oka—and deal with the day-to-day issues of living. That's where harmonization is going to occur—where there are native and non-native peoples right beside each other, as it was stated this afternoon. The lots are very small. People are in very, very close proximity. That has to be dealt with.

The Chair: Thank you, and you've gone into your next round also.

Mr. Marceau, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would simply like to understand, Mr. Gabriel, the mechanism involved in harmonization. There have not yet been discussions about harmonization between the municipality of Oka and the Kanesatake band council.

Grand Chief James Gabriel: Yes. At the beginning of the process, when we were getting ready to sign off the document, last June, we informed the mayor of the municipality of Oka that discussions were moving forward with the federal government and that it was more or less the key elements that were going to be included. There is also going to be a harmonization clause. It is in our interest to get together to discuss common issues regarding which there might be friction. Obviously, it is the Mohawk lands within the village of Oka that have always been a source of friction between our two communities. We never determined clearly which law would apply.

This afternoon, we heard mention made of the Simon case against the municipality of Oka, which at the time was the village of Oka, that said that since there was a legal vacuum, it was the municipal laws that would apply to the entire Mohawk territory. That is what is meant there. But when one looks at what it does within the territory, it forces the municipality of Oka to send inspectors inside Mohawk territory, which is an intolerable situation.

• 1725

Mr. Richard Marceau: For you.

Grand Chief James Gabriel: For us and for them. That simply does not work.

Following the decision rendered in the Simon case, I communicated with Mayor Patry's office to find out what would happen flowing from the decision. It is at that point that we discussed the stage we were at in our talks with the federal government, and it is at that level that things have to happen.

Mr. Richard Marceau: There have therefore already been informal discussions, but as for the details of the harmonization, you are waiting for the bill to be passed and enforced and for the agreement, through passage of the bill, to be put in place. Is that what I am to understand?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: Not exactly. There have been informal discussions from the start, but mention was also made of our immersion school in the pine stand in Oka, or in Kanesatake. For this school to have a water supply and sewers, it will have to be hooked up to the municipal system so as to have a better sprinkler service in the building as well as better fire and environment protection. Obviously, it is a school and there is therefore going to be quite a lot of waste going into the sewage system. We must protect the environment. This is why we have a technical group made up of our representatives and of representatives from the village of Oka who are discussing our water supply and sewer systems and these discussions have already formally begun.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Throughout bill S-24, there is talk of the "interim land base", in other words of a land base not concretely defined. Could you tell me a little bit about the expansion projects you have for Kanesatake? Tell me what is planned, how much land is involved and how you see this agreement applying to the new lands that you hope to be able to eventually buy or control?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: I will do my best to answer your question. It is true that it is an interim land base, to use the proper term, but the agreement remains the same. In the agreement, we will have the option to expand our territory.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Where?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: Where exactly? That will depend on our needs. We did a joint study with the federal government of all of the historical documents on the Seigneurie du Lac des Deux-Montagnes, that encompasses some 266 square miles.

If we expand, we plan on expanding towards the Seigneurie du Lac des Deux-Montagnes. We know that this will be a rather difficult process given the number of people living there. In any event, we need quite a large land base to serve our growing population and to allow for economic development. Something must be done to improve the fate of our people in Kanesatake.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Patry, on May 9th, Ellen Gabriel stated, contrary to what you and Mr. Gabriel have said here today, that relations were tense between Oka and the community of Kanesatake. Is she right or not?

Mr. Yvan Patry: I can tell you that there are some who did not want to go the reconciliation route. We will never be able to change that. Both in the white community and in the aboriginal community there are those who want nothing to do with this at all. But it is not the case of the majority, that I can tell you. It is but the case of a very few.

Mr. Richard Marceau: A very small minority.

Mr. Yvan Patry: We talked earlier about the residents of Oka. I was born in Oka. My family is from Oka.

• 1730

We have been there since the 1850s. I believe I am quite familiar with the process as it is followed there. In any type of community, there are those who are for, those who are against and those who are scarred. I know that I cannot speak on behalf of the Mohawk community, but what I can say is that in our community, people want to move forward and they know that if we do it together, we will do things in such a way that it will be much better for both communities.

Mr. Richard Marceau: If you had a crystal ball before you—what everyone wishes for to some extent...

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Just allow me to ask one last question.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, you're at your seven-minute deadline.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You allowed others to take a little longer saying that it would bite into their next turn. So I am doing the same thing.

I have one last question, Mr. Patry. When approximately do you think the timetable for a harmonization agreement will come out?

Mr. Yvan Patry: As soon as the bill is passed, my hope is that harmonization will be able to begin. When we talk about harmonization, we are simply talking about building codes and things like that.

Mention was made earlier about the Simon case. I would simply like to tell you that the Simon case lasted 12 years. We wound up before the Supreme Court because of a little municipal by-law that states that one cannot build a six-dwelling building on 5,000 feet. It is a simple matter of logic. After that, there was the whole safety issue. So that is it, whereas we are saying in here that we must live as good neighbours.

The 57 lots that are contained within the municipality of Oka will remain federal Mohawk lands under Mohawk jurisdiction. We agree on that. We obviously would have preferred that they not be covered by the agreement, but we understood that everyone had to give a little.

What I want to say is that if a person is not allowed to have a 14 foot high fence in front of his house, why should his neighbour be allowed to? It is a simple matter of good neighbourliness and I am convinced that the Mohawks from Oka understand this as well. As a matter of fact, we see it, because everything is already being done in accordance with the rules. We have problems, but it just takes one individual to at some point decide to go further and we find ourselves involved with constitutional rights and all of the rest, and we spend 12 years digging in our heels, to in the end be faced with a demolition. It is a matter of logic.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mayor Patry and Grand Chief Gabriel, for very interesting briefs and presentations.

I'd like to ask a very brief question of Mayor Patry first. Building from your comments, you just said there were 57 Mohawk properties still within the limits of Oka. Obviously, you've been involved in how this split jurisdiction might be dealt with. Would you elaborate just briefly on how you expect matters to work—in terms of fire safety, or law and order, or traffic regulations, waste management, any of those issues—with those 57 properties that are within the parameters of Oka?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Patry: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Martin, aboriginal laws will apply to building in that area. All right?

As for municipal roads, they will remain municipal roads.

With regard to the services we might offer, be it water, sewers, snow removal, it is obvious that these are services that we will be exchanging with the Mohawk community, with the band council. This is what we mean when we talk about harmonization. It does not stop with the building of houses. There will be constant dialogue between the two on such things as road clean-up, water supply, etc. We have already started to discuss these things, though rather loosely, and I can tell you that it is going very well.

Earlier, the Grand Chief talked about the new aboriginal immersion school that is nearly built. We did not put obstacles in their way. We collaborated, but at the same time it required changing municipal by-laws, changing the MRC de Deux-Montagnes' land use plan, and all of that was done in the space of one month, despite the fact that it is a 90-day process. I would therefore much prefer that things be simply done and that no one be inconvenienced. They also asked us for water and sewers, and we did what had to be done as quickly as possible in order for construction to be able to start within 15 days. We will give them the service.

• 1735

There is therefore no problem in that regard. When I say that we live as good neighbours, that is what good neighbourliness is all about. There must be by-laws stating that houses must be built with such and such a front setback and such and such a rear setback. It is always a matter of safety. If we build houses side by side and one of them catches fire, it is the whole neighbourhood that burns down. It is a matter of logic.

Now, as for the Mohawk territory...

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand. Thank you, Mayor. If I can interrupt you, I only have a few minutes left, and there are some other specific questions I'd like to ask.

One specific thing that was in the presentation by Mr. Bonspille is that he implied that perhaps notices were not sent out to all the members on the membership lists. Given that this is for the record and this will go into the permanent record, could you satisfy that implication that perhaps the band council, and you yourself as grand chief, were less than forthright in giving access to notice of the election to everyone?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: Okay. Unfortunately, I am getting used to accusations of foul play or monkeying the system in regard to ratification votes or elections. In the last election I was accused of flying people in from Florida and Arizona to vote for me. I wish I had the financial backbone to be able to do that, but I don't.

The membership list, or the mailing list, for elections and ratification votes is maintained by the council office. Every community member has a responsibility to notify us of a change of address. We go based on the most current information we have on hand. If people change their address or move out of the territory—or even within the territory sometimes—it may be difficult for everybody to get everything.

We make the documentation available at the council office, through general mailings to everybody's rural delivery mailbox in the territory regardless of their...I can't really say “civic numbers”, because they don't exist in our territory. But rural delivery—everybody gets one.

People from our community who have post office boxes in the village of Oka—the Canada Post workers know everybody gets one. It's not discriminatory in regard to, “Well, we know that section of the territory's not really supportive of our agreement; let's not go there”. That's the way we've been doing our mail-outs of our information packages. To the best of our ability, we attempt to include everybody who can receive those notices.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Grand Chief. That squares that up.

Do I have one minute left?

The Chair: A very short question.

Mr. Pat Martin: Very short.

The Chair: And a very short answer.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay.

I guess I'll skip to this one. Perhaps I can ask Brenda Etienne about the negotiations process. Now you're very specific, I think, in Grand Chief Gabriel's remarks that this bill does not address aboriginal or treaty rights—or does nothing to denigrate or to diminish aboriginal or treaty rights. Either of you, if you could answer, how did you deal with this at negotiation, and what in the bill should give satisfaction to those who think they may be jeopardizing aboriginal or treaty rights? Is there some safeguard in here?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: If I can, I'll answer very quickly.

In Bill S-24, aboriginal and treaty rights are dealt with in subclause 3(2):

This Act does not address any aboriginal or treaty rights of the Mohawks of Kanesatake. Nothing in this Act is intended either to prejudice such rights or to represent a recognition of such rights by Her Majesty in right of Canada.

So the law itself will very clearly set out that aboriginal rights are not affected one way or the other by this agreement.

As I mentioned in my presentation, we have to preserve what we do have and move forward to working toward the treaty at the end of the process. That's what our people have been demanding since the beginning.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, my question is to Your Worship. Currently, are there service agreements between the village of Oka and the band itself? Are there current service agreements outstanding?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Patry: At this time, yes.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There are.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Patry: Yes, but with Public Works Canada.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Through Public Works and Government Services Canada....

Did you want to answer?

• 1740

Ms. Anjali Choksi (Legal Counsel to the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake): I will answer. There's the draft service agreement we're working on. We have been waiting for this bill to pass before we can enter into it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But are there current service—

Grand Chief James Gabriel: There are no service agreements in place right now.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is the City of Oka providing services currently?

Ms. Anjali Choksi: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: How do you currently get paid for those services?

Ms. Anjali Choksi: Under the Municipal Grants Act the federal government grants in lieu of taxes to the municipality.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So there will be a grant in lieu from the band itself to the municipality.

Ms. Anjali Choksi: From the federal government under the current system, until this bill comes into effect....

Mr. Rick Borotsik: When this bill passes, that all changes. We have the opportunity then, Your Worship, to go and negotiate on behalf of the City of Oka, I assume, with the band itself.

What happens to the City of Oka if this agreement doesn't pass, and I say this with respect, to the school that's just been developed, the services being expanded? Would that just simply be added to the grant in lieu now and then given back to the City of Oka.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Patry: It changes absolutely nothing for the municipality. We will still continue to hold out our hand to the band council that wants to work with us. However, this will not give the band council the authority to pass laws relating to policing, education, etc. on federal lands. It will be the status quo. It will still be the municipality that will be charged with enforcing municipal by-laws; it will still be the courts that will decide and, each time, it will be the start of a squabble or perhaps of a war.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Your Worship, there are currently 57 band lots within the municipality. Is there a zoning allocated to those lots now? Are they residential, commercial, or are they not zoned at all?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Patry: As we speak, the great majority of these lots are in residential zones. There are a few buildings that are on the main street, where there are commercial possibilities. There is no problem.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

Grand Chief Gabriel, these negotiations have been going on, as I understand, for some 10 years now. Is that correct?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They started before you became a member of the 1995 or 1996 council.

Grand Chief James Gabriel: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You seem to be getting a lot of the credit for it, however, from 1995-96. Having started the negotiation 10 years ago, I'm looking for your involvement in this from 1995-96. Were you the one who took it to the next level of negotiation?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: I can't take credit for where we are today because the struggles faced by our community go back well over 300 years.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Good point.

Grand Chief James Gabriel: We've come to a point where we're moving forward now because of a lot of hard work done by a lot of our ancestors. There were times when the climate was such that it was impossible to come to any agreements or conclusions. The early to mid-1990s was that era. Our community was in such a state of flux—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm going to jump in here because she's going to cut me off really fast. I have a few other very quick questions.

First, I asked this question earlier. Of your council you're the grand chief; there are five other councillors. Was it unanimous to take this forward?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: Yes, it was. As you are aware, this process is very tentative and the dates are very tricky sometimes to handle. In regard to the initialling, it was on short notice...an unexpected visit from the minister.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Was the council involved in the whole process?

Grand Chief James Gabriel: Yes. The council signed a letter and resolution to the community stating their full support and backing for this agreement.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It was unanimous going forward.

Grand Chief James Gabriel: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There are a lot of detractors. We've heard of some today. It was a very narrow vote from the peoples of Kanesatake to move forward. In your opinion, can you tell me now what the detractors are afraid of? Is it perhaps the jeopardization of treaty rights that are currently outstanding? Is it working closer with Oka? Is it having controls placed on them?

• 1745

Grand Chief James Gabriel: I could fairly sum it up in three words, and I think I've made that presentation to the Senate: fear of change.

After the trauma our community suffered in 1990, and over the years, you get a siege mentality, where you're afraid to move beyond the status quo. We are doing unusual things; it's unprecedented. We hear these words a lot in this process.

We're trying to move forward. And we have to move at a pace that our community is ready for. If we arrive tomorrow morning with a treaty and say, this is it, for as long as the sun shines, for as long as the grass grows, and as long as the river flows, people are not going to get involved or buy into a process like that. We have to move slowly, and people have to see that what we're doing makes a difference and we have to try and try again.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I'd like to thank all the parties for coming. In fact, it's just wonderful that the grand chief and the mayor are working together in harmony like this. I dream of times like this when governments can work together. We all want the same things for our families and kids.

One of the interveners mentioned the Senate earlier, and of course Canada has a two-House system and anyone who wants to get a law through has to get it through both Houses. To me it doesn't matter which one it starts through; it has to go through them both. The harmonization agreement, as made clear, just makes a provision that there's going to be one. So if people want to have input into that, that'll be down the road when it's being negotiated.

I had a bunch of questions I was going to ask, but I want to instead clear up the four issues brought forward. After the agreement's been in place for a year, there are 50 consultation meetings advertised by written notice. After all this, today we only have four substantive issues about the agreement. If we can clear those up, I would be very happy.

The first one Pearl brought up was about land, and I think there is ongoing discussion about various parcels of land. This bill is more on the governance of land that's been agreed to by governments, so that land is continuing to be dealt with in another forum.

Steven brought up three issues. One was bad debt, and that was a good question. I was interested in that myself. I've had the department check it and they confirmed that no, they can't lose their land because of debt. The land can only be transferred from Mohawk to Mohawk.

So that leaves two things. The point about adjacent properties was a concern in harmonization. Since time immemorial, adjacent properties between governments has been obviously an issue, and I think it's a tremendous step forward. Any governments that have something in place like this...it is a great step forward to help harmonization in governments.

I think a mine was mentioned that wasn't exactly adjacent but nearby. Both sides would then be giving up some of their sovereignty on those lands if they chose agreement. I assume it's not impossible that the mayor and the chief in the future could get together. They could also get a method to deal with lands that weren't actually adjacent, but where the municipality wanted to comment on things the first nation was doing, and the first nation wanted to comment on things the municipality was doing. So when you're closely put together—57 lots are interspersed with municipal lots—obviously, harmony would be in the best interests of everyone.

Grand Chief James Gabriel: Perhaps I can just speak to that. One of the most important areas where you do see confrontation, as you said, is where you have conflicting sovereignties or conflicting jurisdictions, neighbours.

You take a look at the news; you see the Palestinians and the Israelis fighting their turf wars every day. What we have to look at in regard to harmonization is, where do you stop harmonizing? When you talk about the effects of pollution or you talk about these types of situations that have a broad impact, you have to start looking at how you deal with that.

In a mining project, for example, you have to deal with those issues. With the mining project we've been struggling with, and which Mr. Bonspille referred to and has been working very hard to move forward in the system, we don't know to what extent the the water table will be affected, for example. We have many community members who live in that area. Is it practically adjacent? Is it adjacent? Is there an impact? Is there not an impact? These are some of the questions that I understood from Mr. Bonspille.

• 1750

So whatever impact is felt by our community should be addressed. It should be taken into consideration. There should be some concept of harmonization going on here, so that these issues can be dealt with. As to the question of whether this agreement keeps us from fighting off these international conglomerate mining people, no, it doesn't. We have a responsibility to protect the lands we still have, and we will do so. We will do what it takes to get informed as to the risks and the dangers, how we deal with these dangers, and how we prevent this from happening in our backyard. I think those are some of the issues that have to be dealt with.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Patry: I would like to add something to what Mr. Gabriel said to reassure you. With regard to the famous mine we have been talking about for the last bit, the municipality has not agreed to the construction of this mine given that it is not in conformity with our municipal by-laws.

An environmental impact study was carried out and tabled. A request was made to the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec. It is in the hands of the commission. Representations were also made at that level by the Mohawk community. Even if the mine represents 180 news jobs and an investment of 100 million dollars, it would be smack in the middle of our best agricultural land, and the municipality is not prepared to let go of everything. We are a rural municipality. That is what gives Oka his character. All of the urban activity is concentrated within the village. That is where the greatest concentration is. The mine would have a tremendous impact on us, and we have not yet bought into it.

I would also like to add something to what I wanted to say earlier to Mr. Borotsik. It must be said that the purpose of harmonization is the avoidance of confrontation. Harmonization involves dialogue. As long as we are able to speak to one another, there will be no confrontation.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I don't know if everyone is satisfied with the—

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Is my time up?

The Chair: Almost, and it will be if I let you ask another question.

I don't know if you feel that you've had enough questions on both sides, but to be fair, I'll do the one round with these witnesses also, as we did earlier.

So I'd like to thank everyone for attending this meeting. It's been very informative. I know it's a very difficult issue for everyone in the community to deal with. I can speak from experience, having gone through a land claims agreement that was binding, and I would really impress on the people who are involved in this, who live in the community, that they still have the opportunity to work out a lot of their issues.

I had a chance to go to the Council of Europe, where some of the requests coming from some of the countries were very basic, such as asking for observers, to make sure they had a democratic election. That really brought to mind that we do have these opportunities in our own country to take measures so that we all have a chance to participate, whereas some people in other countries do not have that opportunity.

I know we have to work together with the kind of legal framework we have in this country. I know it's possible. Compromises have to be made, as they were in my own land claims agreement. I know the signing of any agreement doesn't always work for everyone, but I think we have those opportunities to work out a lot of these issues. It gives people a starting point.

I thank everyone who was able to speak here today, to give us a better understanding of an issue where most of us, because we don't live there, have to rely on information given to us by witnesses. So I thank you all for the understanding we were able to get from the four different parties who appeared before the committee.

I would like to ask the committee if at this time there's agreement to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration, because of the time factor of this bill.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

• 1755

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Excuse me, Madam Chair, but can the witnesses be excused?

The Chair: Thank you. I'm sorry about that. This is only my second or third time doing this process.

(Clauses 2 to 24 inclusive agreed to)

(Schedule I agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill, without amendments, to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Again I thank all the committee members for staying extra minutes to finish this bill. Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.