Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 1, 2001
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill S-24, 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, met this day at 9:32 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Thelma J. Chalifoux (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are here this morning in consideration of Bill S-24, the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act. This is a unique bill and a unique situation. I have been involved with land claims issues for approximately 35 years, and this is the first time I have seen this. It will be exciting and interesting for all of us.
Chief Gabriel, please begin your presentation.
Grand Chief James Gabriel, Mohawks of Kanesatake: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure for me to be here this morning to give this presentation on Bill S-24 and our land governance agreement. I should like to introduce the people with me today. Brenda Etienne is the senior Mohawk negotiator. Anjali Choksi, our legal counsel, has been with us for a good number of years and has followed this process right from the beginning.
The agreement and subsequent legislation that has been tabled here would not have been possible if not for the dedication and the hard work of a good number of people, and I would like to mention them briefly. First and foremost, there is the community of Kanesatake, which on October 14 ratified the agreement that enabled us to come to Ottawa and have this legislation. Our own negotiation team, Brenda Etienne and Anjali Choksi, have worked hard. A good number of community members also worked hard during the consultation process. Unfortunately they are not here with us, but my heartfelt thanks go out to them for supporting us.
[Translation]
I apologize for not having submitted a translation of my presentation. The French version will be available very soon. Please accept my apologies
[English]
In the process, the federal team who had been working on this in conjunction with the Mohawk council has shown great creativity and openness, and that has allowed to us progress over the last five to six years. During this time, as I have been Grand Chief, I have been fortunate and blessed to represent our community. I have also been very fortunate to develop a very good working relationship with the chief federal negotiator, Eric Maldoff. I believe that the close working relationship that we have established has helped restore the trust of our community in the process that we have embarked upon with the federal government so that we will indeed be able to move forward with our process. We have come to know the team from Indian Affairs over the last number of years and they have come to know a good many of our community members. These kinds of working relationships enable us to have confidence and faith in the process, because these negotiations are not simple. They are very challenging. The work that we have done together with the federal government has not always been easy. It has been trying and at times frustrating, but overall, with a common understanding and a good working relationship, we have been able to put our heads together and bring this agreement and the legislation to Parliament. This bill is a critical milestone for the community of Kanesatake. It implements, through Parliament, the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Agreement signed between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and the Government of Canada on December 21, 2000. It will allow us to take control of our future, to govern ourselves and our interim land base, and to bring much needed social and economic stability and security to Kanesatake, thus ensuring future prosperity. Kanesatake is a Mohawk community of approximately 2,000 members situated on the Lake of Two Mountains approximately 50 kilometres northwest of Montreal. Our community has enormous human potential. The people of Kanesatake, our human resources, are talented and generally very knowledgeable about our Mohawk culture, laws and traditions. Members of my community speak Mohawk, English or French. A significant portion of the community is bilingual, and many members of the community, such as Chief Dean Gabriel and Chief Clarence Simon who are here with me today, speak all three languages fluently. We have expertise in agriculture, construction, teaching, diplomacy, silversmithing, beadwork, woodwork and ironwork. This spring, we began construction of a Mohawk language immersion school for our children. Many of our skilled tradespeople are currently working on this project. We want Kanesatake to be a prosperous and hospitable place for the present and future generations while at the same time preserving our unique identify as Mohawk people. Our geographic location is ideal. Situated on rolling hills overlooking the Lake of Two Mountains, our lands have rich agricultural and tourism potential, and these are two areas of stable and sustainable economic development. While we are within a 45-minute drive of downtown Montreal, our community is more than rural than urban. The nature of our interim land base is unique. A number of lots that make up Kanesatake Mohawk lands are situated within the boundaries of the village of Oka, where Mohawk land is intermingled with land held by non-Mohawks. The Mohawk nation, along with the other five nations of the Iroquois, or Haudenosaunee, confederacy, is steeped in demo cratic tradition. Many classical scholars have marvelled at the sophisticated political structure of the Iroquois confederacy, which was formed over 600 years ago. It is a political structure in which women have always exercised great power. One historian described the Iroquois confederacy as a government "of the whole, by the whole, for the benefit of the whole." Benjamin Franklin, one of the drafters of the United States Constitution, was a scholar of the Iroquois political structure and treaties and was inspired in his work on the American Constitution by the Constitution of the Iroquois people. As a council of a community that is a member of the Mohawk nation, we are committed to the rule of law: to democracy, accountability and transparency. Unfortunately, due to legal uncertainties surrounding the legal status of Kanesatake Mohawk lands, our community has often been labelled a "legal vacuum," and 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 recognized legal status has meant that the unique status of our lands has not been respected and that the legal elected body for the Mohawks of Kanesatake, the Mohawk Council, has never had recognized law-making powers. This situation has impeded the development of our economy and has frustrated community members who have been unable to pursue opportunities in the community in the resulting vacuum of authority. Simply put, it is 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 counter-productive to stability and lends itself to confusion, lawlesssness and anarchy. The lack of stability and 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 that 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, and it became easy for persons without a mandate from the people to claim to speak on our behalf. The Oka crisis was about protection of our lands, recognition of our longstanding grievances and defending our rights. It occurred in part because our community's voice was not being heard and because the Mohawk council of the day could not govern effectively. In the years following the Oka crisis, the Mohawks of Kanesatake and the Crown in right of Canada began negotiating solutions to the outstanding grievances of the Mohawks of Kanesatake. At first, we concentrated primarily on the land-related grievances. The resolution of our land grievances is of crucial importance to my community. However, as time passed it became clear that it would be difficult to resolve grievances in the nature of land claims without effective public security and authority in place. We needed to address the problems of lawlessness in the community and provide security to our people. Let me illustrate the degree of the problem we faced. In the early to mid-1990s, the sound of gunfire in the community was so commonplace that we no longer reacted to it at all. At outdoor skating rinks, picnics or family gatherings, we would hear the sound of gunfire and no one would flinch. Break-ins were frequent and community members who had to leave their houses empty for a few days did so with great trepidation. Yet we had no police force to call upon. The Sûreté du Québec could not and would not police our lands, and we had no means to set up an effective police presence on our own. In 1996, after receiving a mandate from our community, the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake began negotiations with Canada and Quebec to set up a Mohawk police force for the Mohawks of Kanesatake. The resulting interim and then three-year policing agreements were the first substantive agreements between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and the governments of Canada and Quebec. The Kanesatake Mohawk police is a fully trained police force operating under the supervision of the Kanesatake Mohawk Police Commission, an independent body made up of five well-respected women who are members of the community. The mandate of our police force is to enforce "all applicable laws" yet we were one of the only First Nations communities in Canada with no recognized ability to adopt our own laws or regulations. For the concept of the "rule of law" to be meaningful to the Mohawks of Kanesatake, it is crucial that we have the recognized capacity to develop and adopt our own laws, and to deal with matters of primary concern to the community. Once the police force was in place, our next priority became effective, responsible governance. The Land Governance Agree ment and the bill that is before you today guarantee that the people of Kanesatake will have an effective Kanesatake Mohawk government with the power to adopt Kanesatake Mohawk laws. The agreement recognizes, for the first time, the unique constitutional status of Kanesatake Mohawk lands under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Land Governance Code guarantees that the Mohawk council will government fairly, openly and honestly in the interests of the community. The agreement and the bill will bring much needed stability, prosperity and independence to Kanesatake. Stability is a fundamental requirement for sustainable economic development. Along with recognition of our ability to enact laws, the agreement and the bill provide for us a process to appoint our own justices of the peace to adjudicate those laws. However, as reflected in section 38 of the agreement and clause 16(2) of the bill, we will not appoint any justices of the peace until we have reached an agreement with Canada that would ensure the independence of these justices as well as their role within the legal system as a whole. The constitutional status of Kanesatake Mohawk lands has been an outstanding issue as long as I can remember. While rejecting the archaic and paternalistic model of the Indian Act we have long sought the protection of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which recognizes and protects the unique nature of our Indian lands. Through the bill that is before you we have attained the longstanding objective for all lands currently held by Mohawks in Kanesatake, including lands situated in the village of Oka. The harmonization provisions of the land governance agreement and the bill have been carefully developed and articulated to ensure that we work together with our neighbour, the Municipality of Oka, on the development of our adjacent lands. The provisions ensure that harmonization works two ways and is not a situation where one party dictates to the other. A one-sided version of harmonization fosters only resentment, but the version embodied in our agreement and the bill guarantees that both parties will work together to develop and protect adjacent lands. We have struck a committee of chiefs and technical representatives to engage in discussions with the municipality on harmonization and issues of common concern. At my invitation, the Municipality of Oka has struck a similar committee and we have already entered into discussions of issues of mutualimportance arising from the Land Governance Agreement. On February 26 this year, I gave a speech to Chamber of Commerce of Lac des Deux-Montagnes, wherein I expressed our desire to become more involved in regional development. I explained that we were taking our rightful place as equal partners in developing an economy, that our community had been silent for far too long, and that we had remained isolated from our neighbours for much too long. We were well received at that meeting. It felt good to be part of mainstream society, if you will. As promised in sections 46 and 47 of the Land Governance Agreement, we have been consulted throughout the drafting process for the bill that is before you. We have had the opportunity, through our legal counsel, to ask questions, make comments and suggestions regarding the language of the bill. Throughout the consultation process with community members, concerns were expressed about whether the federal law would reflect the agreement or not, and it was of great importance to us that the content of the agreement be reflected in the bill. Many of our elders warned that we must ensure that the legislation reflects the agreement. As you can appreciate, there are still some misgivings about entering into agreements on the part of our elders, who have had prior experience. In our opinion, the bill reflects both the spirit and the content of our agreement with Canada. We are also pleased with how the language used throughout the bill reflects the agreement. We are particularly pleased with the manner in which the bill reflects the rhythm of our negotiating process. We have an ongoing negotiating process with Canada and through it we are committed to resolving the long-standing grievances of the Mohawks of Kanesatake. The matters dealt with in this bill are pressing and urgent for our community. We cannot continue to live in a legal vacuum, but we cannot let the urgency of these particular issues dictate the pace of negotiations on other issues. We need to proceed incrementally. You must keep in mind that Kanesatake is not a community with a long history of successful relationships with the Government of Canada, or the Government of Quebec, for that matter. There is a great deal of mistrust, apprehension and suspicion. Some believe that any initiative supported by Canada must, by that fact alone, be contrary to the interests of the Mohawks of Kanesatake. The council and I do not hold such beliefs, but it is important that we be able to negotiate at a pace which reflects the will of our community. People in the community need to see how our negotiation process and the agreements that are produced from it improve their lives and the lives of their children. I truly believe that as the community sees how the Land Governance Agreement improves life and opportunities in Kanesatake, future agreements and initiatives with Canada will be forthcoming and, indeed, expected. Ultimately, our community expects that our grievances will be resolved through a treaty. By explicitly recognizing that we are dealing with the Kanesatake interim land base, the bill gives our community confidence that Canada is committed to continuing negotiations to resolve Kanesatake's outstanding claims. This tells us that Canada, too, believes in our process. As you know, the agreement that gives rise to this bill was narrowly accepted by a secret ballot vote that was held in Kanesatake in October, 2000. I would like to tell you about the ratification process and how it was conducted. Before we advanced to any significant degree in our negotiations with Canada on content of the Land Governance Agreement, we embarked on a consultation process with our community members. We believed that we could not simply arrive with an initial document and ask community members for ratification. It was extremely important that their voices be heard on the issue of what should be included in the agreement. On October 30, 1998, Brenda Etienne, our co-chair at the lands table, sent a letter in English and French to all community members informing them of the work taking place at the land base sectoral table. She also informed them that we would be undertaking a consultation with community members regarding the content of both a proposed agreement with Canada and on a code. At that time, the agreement was referred to as a "land management agreement," but the title changed in January 1999, in response to comments from community members who had participated in the workshops held up to that point. We did not immediately put a time limit on this consultation process as we did not want to make community members feel rushed. In the end, this initial consultation process lasted from December 1998 to June 1999. During this process, further newsletters or communiqués were sent to all community members residing on or off Kanesatake Mohawk lands. These materials informed members of the process, invited them to attend a consultation workshop and provided the names and telephone numbers of persons to contact should they wish to attend. These notices were in English, Mohawk and French and were sent on November 3, 1998, November 25, 1998, January 18, 1999, March 8, 1999 and May 21, 1999. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, we hired four well-respected community members to contact members of the community to arrange for them to attend the workshop. Through these efforts, more than 600 members of the Mohawks of the Kanesatake agreed to attend a workshop. While a little less than 300 members actually attended and participated in the consultation workshops. These workshops were conducted by Brenda Etienne, and our legal counsel, Anjali Choksi. The workshops lasted between two to three hours. They were conducted informally around a table to give people the opportunity to ask questions and comment without feeling uncomfortable. The meetings took place in English, French and Mohawk, which Ms Etienne also speaks fluently. During these workshops, community members informed us that they preferred that we proceed incrementally with the Land Governance Agreement. Our initial plan for the agreement had been to include jurisdiction over interests in land as part of the agreement. In response to community members' comments, we determined that it would be better to proceed with interests in land as a second step and to concentrate on governance and status of land issues in our agreement. The content of our Land Governance Code was discussed in great detail during our workshops. Our code, which was adopted by the community together with the Land Governance Agree ment, is divided generally into three parts. Those parts are: political accountability of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake, financial accountability, and development of laws. The code was developed in accordance with the input from community members who attended the workshops. Through this initial consultation, we engaged in an intensive negotiation process with Canada that resulted in the Land Governance Agreement. On June 21, 2000, the Land Governance Agreement was initialled. This act initiated a further intensive community information process. We held two public meetings to discuss the Land Governance Agreement on July 5 and 29, 2000. However, these meetings were not productive. Fewer than 50 people attended each meeting and, of those, only about 15 participated. The issues raised had little or nothing to do with the agreement and code. Therefore, the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake determined that information sessions in the form of workshops were the only means of providing members of the community with full information regarding the content of the agreement and the code, and the consequences of voting "yes" or "no." The same group of women was hired again to contact community members by telephone or in person and ask them to come to a workshop. More than 460 community members were contacted directly in this manner. Approximately 50 workshops were held between July 6, 2000 and October 6, 2000. Five of those workshops were held off Kanesatake Mohawk lands for non-resident, eligible voters, and the rest were held on Kanesatake Mohawk lands at the elders centres or in peoples' homes. Once again, Ms Etienne and Ms Choksi conducted the workshops in English, French and Mohawk. These information sessions were typically conducted over a two-hour period, however, many took longer. There were also a few abbreviated sessions that were conducted for the elders. At these workshops, the agreement and code were reviewed clause by clause, with explanations provided as to the meaning of each. Ms Etienne and Ms Choksi made every effort to be as neutral as possible when conducting the sessions as did those responsible for contacting community members to set up the workshops. All community members were also sent notices dated August 10, 2000, and September 7, 2000, urging them to attend the workshops with the time, date and places of the information sessions included. These notices were in English, Mohawk and French. In early September 2000, all community members received a copy of a question and answer flyer - in both English and French - containing the questions most frequently posed at the workshops and the answers given to them. On September 29, 2000, all of the chiefs in council signed an open letter to community members in which we outlined the consequences of a "yes" or "no" vote and urged all members to vote. On page 2 of that letter, the community members were reminded that if the majority of voting Kanesatake Mohawk members accept the agreement and the code, only then would this document be ratified by Canada. With regard to the vote, we did not have a legal requirement to have the Kanesatake Land Governance Agreement and the code ratified by a secret ballot since they did not affect interest in land. The agreement is without prejudice to, and does not affect, Aboriginal and treaty rights. However, both Ms Etienne and the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake determined that in view of the historic importance of the agreement coupled with the fact that this was one of the first agreements to be reached under the negotiation process, it was essential that it ratified by community members in a secret ballot vote. We hired an independent electoral officer from another Mohawk community who has significant experience managing elections in First Nations communities, including the last two elections for national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. We determined that all adult members of the Mohawks of Kanesatake, regardless of their place of residence, would be able to cast a ballot in the ratification vote, as is our custom in council elections. Mail-in ballots were also accepted from members living in and outside of Kanesatake. We believe strongly in an inclusive democracy. We anticipated that the voter turnout would not be high. Voter turnout for elections in Kanesatake is typically anywhere from 30 to 50 per cent of eligible voters. These numbers are similar to those found in our sister communities of Kahnawake and Akwesasne. One of the reasons for this is that many traditional people reject the voting process as they believe that it is contrary to our traditional decision-making process, which relies on consensus. Knowing that a majority of the eligible voters in the community would not participate in the ratification vote, we made sure that the process leading up to the vote was as extensive and inclusive as possible. Every community member who wished to learn about, and comment on, the agreement and the code was able to do so. The agreement was initialled on June 21, 2000. The next day, every community member received a copy of the agreement and code and a summary and explanation of the two documents. All materials were in English and French. Also on June 22, 2000, I sent a communiqué to all community members explaining that the agreement had been initialled - not signed - and that the agreement would only be signed when and if the community accepted it in a vote. On September 7, 2000, all members of the Mohawks of Kanesatake were sent an initial notice of the time, date and place of the advanced poll and the poll itself, in English and French. On October 4, 2000, the Chief Electoral Office sent a second notice, in English, Mohawk and French, to all community members reminding them of the time, date and place of the ratification vote, and providing a telephone number to call for further information. A third notice, containing the same information in English and French, was sent out on October 13, 2000. On October 14, 2000 - almost four months after the agreement was initialled - the ratification vote was held under the direction of Chief Electoral Officer Robert Johnson. An advance poll took place on October 7, 2000. The question on the ballot was: "Do you agree to ratify the agreement with respect to the Kanesatake governance of the interim land base and the Land Governance Code?" Of a voting population of approximately 1,500 people, 239 people voted "yes" and 237 people voted "no." There were 10 spoiled ballots. The standard used to determine whether a ballot was valid was that of a "clear intention manifested." During both the advance poll and on actual voting day a group of five to ten community members picketed directly outside the polling stations with signs urging people to vote "no." They were present throughout the day of the advance poll at one of the polling stations and throughout the day of the actual vote at both polling stations. While we were concerned that their presence would intimidate some voters, we decided that any attempt to ask them to leave or move would create greater problems and might be viewed as anti-democratic. When the Chief Electoral Officer announced that the polls were closed on October 14, he was approached by the individuals on the protest line who asked to have two of their people present at the count. The Chief Electoral Officer agreed to this request, even though no formal request had been made in writing as he had previously required. I understand that, following the vote, some community members sent letters challenging the process used for the ratification vote. No letters were sent to the council on this issue or on the issue of a recount. However, in early December the council received, in a letter addressed to the community, what we perceived to be a request for a recount. Accordingly, a decision was taken to conduct a recount. We mandated retired Quebec Superior Court Justice Lawrence A. Poitras to conduct a recount of the votes. I invited the most outspoken of the persons objecting to the vote to be present at that recount. The recount took place on December 14, 2000 at which the results of the initial count by the Chief Electoral Officer were confirmed entirely. We also gave the Honourable Lawrence Poitras a mandate to review the process leading up to the vote as well as the voting process itself, and to provide his opinion. In his 15-page opinion he reviewed in detail our consultation and voting process and concluded that "the process leading up to the ratification vote on the Land Governance Agreement was indeed proper and fair, and that the vote itself was carried out fairly and properly." Among his conclusions Justice Poitras noted that "No stone was left unturned in informing the community of the upcoming vote and the significance of the agreement. The question marked on the ballots was clear and unequivocal." I truly believe that it would have been impossible to have a ratification process any more open, inclusive and fair than the one which we undertook in this case. Clearly, there are divisions in Kanesatake, but I believe that it is ultimately healthy to have opposition in politics. It keeps the powers that be in balance. Kanesatake is a young democracy. It has only been since 1991 that we have had an elective system in our community. The bill, which ratifies through Parliament our Land Governance Agreement, is a good thing for Kanesatake. It demonstrates how much progress we have made in the last 10 years and provides us with the tools to continue on the path laid by our ancestors in building a secure and healthy environment for our children and for those who have yet to show their faces. The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Gabriel, for that very interesting presentation. Senator Rompkey: I wish to ask first about membership. Can you it describe to me the membership of the community and how it is determined? Mr. Gabriel: Currently the membership list is maintained by the Department of Indian Affairs on their band list, and we have a copy of that list in our territory. It is dictated by the Indian Act. We have many non-native people living within the territory of Kanesatake. Our community has always developed and grown with our non-native neighbours in the village of Oka and we have always shared much of the same area. Over the years, barring 1990, we have got along very well. Senator Rompkey: Is the determination of who is and who is not a member up to the local council? Mr. Gabriel: No. Membership is currently determined by the Department of Indian Affairs. Unlike our sister communities of Kahnawake and Akwesasne, we do not currently have a membership code enacted. A draft membership code has been worked on over the last several years, taking the best parts of Kahnawake and Akwesasne and looking at some of the problems they have encountered over the years and some of the shortcomings of their electoral codes. We have appointed a committee of community members to develop what would be best for Kanesatake. That is something that will be forthcoming over the next couple of years. We realize that membership is an extremely delicate, sensitive and difficult issue. There are many concerns involved in the adoption of a membership code. Debbie Thomas, an expert in membership from Akwesasne, has written many articles cautioning against memberships codes that are too restrictive. The concern is eventual extinction because the gene pool is not broad enough. There have been many papers written on that. Senator Rompkey: Can members live anywhere at all? Can a member live here in Ottawa, for example? Mr. Gabriel: We have 1,200 to 1,300 members living on the territory of a total membership of approximately 2,000. Therefore, 700 to 800 people who are on our membership list live off the territory of Kanesatake. Senator Rompkey: Do they vote? Mr. Gabriel: They do. Since 1991, when we switched from a traditional system to an elective democratic system, we have always included off-territory voters because we have always felt very strongly that everyone who has an interest in Kanesatake should be able to participate in elections. It has been my experience that, regardless of where people go, at some point they do come back because of the ties of family and friends. It is the place they call home. The Kanesatake territory is a solid anchor for most community members. While I was growing up, my father often said, "Nuts don't fall far from the tree." We have a tendency to come back to where we were raised. Senator Rompkey: You say that you are one of the few First Nations with no recognized ability to adopt your own rules and regulations. Why is that? Mr. Gabriel: One of the problems is that our community was never a reserve. The band council was recognized as a band council under the Indian Act, but it was never clear whether the status of the land fell under section 91(1)(a) or section 91(24). Many people more learned than I have clearly expressed that. Although our council had the ability to enact laws, we had no way to enforce them. That created a very difficult situation in regard to governing the territory. Our community has never wanted to be an Indian Act reserve. That is why, in this agreement, we have come up with a very unique solution to that while retaining the protection of section 91(24) under the Constitution. Senator Rompkey: Your timing is probably good because the minister announced yesterday that he is consulting on changes to the Indian Act. Mr. Gabriel: As we evolve as a First Nations people and take on more responsibility in regard to determining our own futures and developing our own laws, that we will see more and more First Nations communities moving away from the Indian Act. Also, this process must be approached very cautiously, as we did in this instance for the Land Governance Agreement. People have become accustomed to the Indian Act, regardless of its shortcomings. There is always the fear of moving away from the status quo. We are not surprised that the vote was tight in this case, as it is very difficult to implement change. I am not sure how many times modifications of the Indian Act were attempted over the years. It has always been difficult. For our community this is the first substantive agreement with Canada, and it is very tricky. It is very hard to get people to move. We tell them, "Listen, we have had difficult times in the past, but we are in a process. We have faith in this process." As a council, we try to encourage our people. The process is working. We are moving forward. It is going well. We will get results. As I stated in my presentation, the Land Governance Agreement is such a critical building block that once we build upon it, enact our own laws, get our own institutions, courts and infrastructure to govern ourselves, people will see things happening. Stability will be there. We will not need to worry about what laws will apply, how we will enforce them, who will enforce them, and whether someone will come when we call them to police our territory. We are very fortunate now to have our own police force. There are some difficulties, without the Land Governance Agreement being in place, in administering all applicable laws on the territory. It does create some confusion. However, all in all, I think that we are moving in the right direction. Senator Rompkey: I was very interested in the closeness of the vote. You said you expected that. I can understand the low turnout. You are not alone. Turnout at elections across the country has been dropping, and we will not go into the reasons for that. You obviously took more pains that perhaps I have ever seen before to have discussions and to make people aware that they have a chance to participate in the discussion, to learn what this was all about, to understand the pros and cons. Yet, in spite of that, the vote was very, very close. It interests me as to why, after having gone through that very elaborate process, the vote would be so close. Mr. Gabriel: There are a number of factors that contributed to the closeness of the vote, one of which I referred to earlier. Coming forward with the first substantive agreement for our community, there was the fear as to whether it was a good thing. Is the timing right? Is it what we need? There is the conception that, once you sign an agreement with Canada, that is it, you are not going any further than that, when all our concerns have not been addressed. You must also have to take into account the fact that we have traditional people in Kanesatake, very similar to other First Nations, where traditional people do not get involved in band council elections, referenda or ratification votes. Even the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake is seen as part of the Canadian government, part of a foreign government, and it is not our way and we do not get involved. That automatically eliminates a good segment of the population. In our community it is approximately 20 to 30 per cent of the total population. The ratification process itself was very highly charged politically. We saw that by picketers coming out during voting day, the ratification vote. Although there were some concerns about the impact it would have on the vote, we felt it was a positive thing. People are getting accustomed to a democratic, elective system. I do not like to say that we are forming into the leading party and the opposition party similar to the Canadian government, but we do see people becoming more comfortable, voicing their opinions on votes, picketing and campaigning really hard. I think the closeness of the vote is also a tribute to the people who campaigned very strongly against the agreement. They were effective. We were very effective. Both sides came out, did their darndest to get their point across, and at the end of the day, I could not have asked more from a process than we got. I think that, as we go on, people will be informed enough to understand, when there is a vote, that it is not all smoke and mirrors and trickery, that it is actually democracy in motion, and that that is how things are getting done and how we move forward. Also, over the years, people have asked, why are there so many divisions in Kanesatake? Why is it so hard to talk to the governing body? Who is really representative? As we move forward with the Land Governance Agreement, as we ensure that transparency, accountability and basic fair play exist in the governing body, we will see that those fractures, divisions or rifts in the community will slowly diminish, and we will see a democracy alive and well in Kanesatake. I really look forward to that day. Senator Rompkey: I come from Newfoundland. If it is any comfort to you, at our last meeting I reminded everybody that when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, the vote was 52 per cent to 48 per cent. There are still people who do not completely agree with the result. You should not feel that your vote was unusual in any way. Senator Wilson: You said that in 1991 you moved from a traditional consensus to the democratic system. Did you deter mine that by consensus or by voting? Mr. Gabriel: That is a very good question. Right after 1990, there was a period of time where things were very unstable. During that summer, a political party that was formed - the Coalition of Kanesatake - which started a movement for changing the Six Nations traditional chief system or traditional system to a more democratic one. The short answer is that it was a democratic vote, a ratification vote, and there was overwhelm ing support from our community at that time. I do not recall the exact numbers. I could provide them to you later, if it is of interest, but the community voted overwhelmingly in a demo cratic system to change to an elective system. Senator Wilson: So it was by vote then, not by consensus? Mr. Gabriel: Yes, it was by vote. Senator Wilson: I find that slightly ironic, when many Anglo communities are now looking to consensus as a more valid way of making decisions. There have been press comments that spokespersons from the longhouse questioned whether the Council and the Mohawk Development Corporation are able to represent the community adequately on land-related matters. Can you tell us something about the relationship of the Council to the Development Corporation? To whom is the Development Corporation accountable? Mr. Gabriel: It might be a technical answer, but the corporation, or Kanesatake Orihwáshon Development Corporation - KODC, as is it known - has a contract with the federal government to management the properties that have been purchased by the federal government over a number of years. That corporation is governed by a board of directors made up of two ex officio members from the Mohawk Council who are the chiefs holding the social portfolios and economic development, and community members who are entrepreneurs or business people in the territory itself. That corporation is at arm's length from the Council. It is governed by a board and a governing body comprising community members. That is the relationship between the Council and the corporation. How does this relate to our traditional government? The question of how we bring together a traditional form of government and an elected system such as the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake is a question that will be present for a long time. We are not the only community to be struggling with this issue and looking at a process of nation-building. Both Akwesasne and Kahnawake have embarked upon a nation-building process. We have had our own discussions at the Canada-Mohawk round table where we have a forum of the three Mohawk communities and the federal government to discuss issues of mutual concern. How do we include our traditional governments in what we have today as a Mohawk Council? We have made every attempt to reach out to our traditional people, one of whom, David Gabriel, I see as the leader of our longhouse. He is a very solid spiritual person in our community. Not unlike the political system with the Mohawk Council, our own traditional community members have their own respective divisions within the longhouse itself. We will have several different people claiming to be the old chief for Kanesatake. We try to include everybody who claims to have a voice for the people. Senator Tkachuk: Who are the shareholders of the Mohawk Development Corporation? Mr. Gabriel: The shareholders are all community members. Ms Anjali Choksi, Legal Counsel, Mohawks of Kanesatake: It is a not-for-profit corporation constituted under federal law. Senator Tkachuk: People have to be members of the not-for-profit. Ms Choksi: People have to be members of the not-for-profit, but its constitution requires it to act in the best interests of the Mohawks of Kanesatake. Economic development and social development issues are what it concentrates on. Senator Tkachuk: Who are the members? Do you have a membership list? Mr. Gabriel: We do have a membership list that is maintained. Unfortunately, I do not have it with me here today. When the concept of the corporation was put forth and we started looking at developing the economy, we - myself and the chiefs on the council going back to 1996-1997 - did not want to have a corporation that was interested only in the bottom line, making money whatever the cost. We needed a corporation with a social conscience and a corporation that could help the economy, help our community members and not just take the money and run. That was very important to us. Senator Tkachuk: Do you have annual meetings? Mr. Gabriel: There are annual meetings, and minutes of the meetings are recorded. Senator Tkachuk: They vote for the board of directors? Mr. Gabriel: They do. Senator Tkachuk: That would be anybody who wants to be a member who is a member of the Mohawk nation or of your particular community? Mr. Gabriel: Our particular community. Senator Tkachuk: They can become a member. Do they pay for membership card or is a card given to them, or are they all automatically members who can come to the meeting and vote for the board? Ms T. Brenda Etienne, Senior Negotiator, Mohawks of Kanesatake: The development corporation was designed to be inclusive. Anybody who is a member of Kanesatake may apply to be a member of the corporation. The corporation was divided into sectors seeking representation from people who are involved in agriculture, in commercial development, or who may be in the church or the traditional sector. It is designed to enable the people in those sectors to nominate at any time during the year a person from their sector to represent them at the board. This will happen at each annual meeting. In terms of the social aspect of the corporation, it has already had an impact in the community. Last fall, we had a couple of fires in the community. One in particular affected my aunt and her husband who are in their 70s. The corporation immediately stepped in and contributed to bring their house back up to a fine standard, where they could continue living. It has had a very positive impact in the community already from the social aspect. Senator Tkachuk: I understand that you are interested in social policy, but suppose you accidentally made a profit. Where do the profits go? Ms Etienne: The profits go back into the community. Senator Tkachuk: Does the council decide, or does the corporation decide? Who is in charge here? Who is administering the social programs and administrating the business of the corporation? Is it the corporation, individuals or the band council? In other words, when you have profits, do you turn them over to the band council and let them administer the good works or do you do it yourself? Mr. Gabriel: The corporation manages the profits that are generated. The way it reinvests them into the community is determined by the letters patent of the corporation or the articles of incorporation. The corporation must invest in the areas of economic or social or language issues. One of the issues we face, obviously, is protecting and preserving the language and moving forward. As the corporation generates profit or manages its resources well, we hope to be able to start our own initiatives with revenues generated by the corporation, starting with funding more substantially the language program we already have in place to move forward with these programs. The corporation manages the revenues, and everything is re-injected back into the community. Senator Fraser: Why is there no provision in here for the protection of women's interests in matters of residency, asset division on dissolution of marriage - a range of things? Mr. Gabriel: It is a very technical question, Senator Fraser. I will ask Ms Choksi to respond. Ms Choksi: On the issue of asset division, since we did not address issues such as interests in land, we did not address what how assets would be divided on dissolution of marriage. In terms of residency, the Canadian Charter applies. At almost every single workshop the question of residency power was discussed. The vast majority of people in Kanesatake accept the idea that if you are a non-Mohawk and you are a family member or living with a Mohawk, you have a right to reside in Kanesatake. This idea was discussed at meetings. It was accepted. Because it is a non-controversial issue, it did not need to be addressed. In the residency matters that are addressed in their draft membership code, those are the principles on which residency is determined, that non-Mohawks may reside, if they are with Mohawks. That is one of the most liberal approaches to residency of any of the First Nations with which I have worked. Senator Fraser: Were there discussions of women's issues? You know better than I do, I am sure, what a serious and contentious area this is. Did you even talk about addressing that? Mr. Gabriel: I think that issue of women's rights or, more specifically, the rights of residency, were not targeted specifically because we have always been very inclusive. We have never been discriminatory to Mohawk women or non-Native women living within the territory. In our draft membership code, we accept and recognize that women living in the territory have the right to residency. The right to hold title is not under the Indian Act, but the specific issues were not pinpointed in that fashion. A more inclusive approach was taken to try to deal with all of these issues. As Ms Choksi stated, the Charter of Rights does apply, and we are not looking at trampling all over the Charter in this agreement. Senator Fraser: You are referring to the equality rights section of the Charter? Ms Choksi: Yes. Senator Fraser: I gather that Kanesatake, like many communities, has financial problems, and you are having to cut back on some services. Do you think this agreement will make a difference to the community's financial position, and if so, how? Mr. Gabriel: That question is a very good one. First Nations communities that do not have the opportunity to generate revenues on a large scale through resources such as oil or timber products must find ways to attract investors to develop businesses and technologies within the territory. Over a good number of years, people have been reluctant to invest in Kanesatake because of concerns relating to the community's stability that arose in 1990. They said, "Who is in control there? It seemed pretty lawless a few years back. We will not put our hard-earned money into that territory." Clearly, the Land Governance Agreement sets out the laws that will apply, how they are applied and how the governing council will apply them. I think it will bring greatly needed stability into the territory. With that stability, a clearly designed set of laws will be in place. With such a regime, investors and businessmen can be attracted to develop an economy. Senator Fraser: What kind of things are you looking for? Mr. Gabriel: For us, there are a number of areas. We have vast amounts of agricultural lands that were purchased by the federal government post-1990. The corporation, KODC, that is in place is currently developing and restoring some of the apple orchards that exist. We are looking at agricultural projects for those lands. One of the projects we are looking at is the development of light manufacturing, such as furniture manufacturing. We are contemplating a sports arena for the area. Ice rink time is in high demand. Currently, we are developing an Internet technology project with a multimedia school to set an example in our territory for youth. This will illustrate that there will be high-tech, well-paid jobs in the territory. We have to be very creative in developing the economy. We must look at tourism because we have the park at Oka that attracts 500,000 to 600,000 tourists per year. We want our share of the tourist dollars that come into the region. Senator Fraser: Are you looking at gambling? Mr. Gabriel: In 1996, we made a feeble attempt as far as casinos were concerned. We conducted a referendum. The community said that, yes, it wanted a casino for our territory. We ran through the process of trying to obtain provincial support, licensing and all of the necessary requirements to do it. Finally, in about August of 1997, we received a letter from, I think it was, Guy Chevrette, who said, "We have received many requests for native gaming and we are not ready to take a decision." As a result, we let it go by the wayside. Currently, there are discussions among First Nations of having one native casino to share the profits for all First Nations. It is not something that we have pursued actively for a number of years now. We have participated in some discussions with fellow chiefs in Quebec, but it is not something that is really at the forefront of our development. Senator Johnson: Thank you for your presentation, Grand Chief. It was extremely enlightening for one who has followed your activities and work over the last 10 years since Oka, which has become part of our Canadian history and which, hopefully, will be bettered in the future. I want to follow up on one question with regard to the women. You are probably very familiar with the land management legislation that was passed in 1990. It required that the 14 participating First Nations adopt the land code. In that process, they had to develop rules and procedures respecting land use and the division of interests in land in the cases of marriage breakdown. My colleague referred to this. Did you look at this in your discussions and negotiations with regard to Bill S-24? Mr. Gabriel: In regard to the bill, as you are aware, there was a code developed on how the Mohawk Council governs itself and how it uses those law-making abilities. In the agreement itself, there is a provision for the development of a land use plan. That has been discussed and looked at. Senator Johnson: I was very much a part of this whole First Nations land management legislation in terms of hearings. That is why I was wondering why you did not feel it necessary to include anything specific with regard to women. Ms Choksi: Because we are not dealing with the interests in land, we are not yet at the point where we need to be developing rules about the division of assets upon the dissolution of a marriage. When we get there, which we will, we will have to do that. Senator Johnson: What the minister said yesterday concerning the Indian Act may kick in with what you are doing, especially in regard to the land rights of women. Of the biggest impediments to self-government that we heard for almost two years in our hearings had to do with the fact that women were opposed to self-government because of the Indian Act and their inability to own land. Ms Choksi: The Indian Act, as it refers to interests in land, does not apply to Kanesatake. Therefore, any amendments that are made thereto would not necessarily apply. However, as a second step, we see embarking on a process of negotiations over interests in land and, absolutely, the interests on dissolution of marriage, when people die intestate, how they inherit and who inherits will have to be addressed. Senator Johnson: It is very important for the public to know that this is a different situation and that, often, especially where I come from, people are not familiar with it. I am happy to hear that you will be including that. Can you give us an idea about the land that the government has acquired for Kanesatake since the summer of 1990? Where is it situated? Mr. Gabriel: There have been a number of purchases. I could not give you the total area that has been purchased, but the corporation is currently managing approximately 75 properties with residences on them. That is about all I can say in regard to the square footage or the number of kilometres. Senator Johnson: I am curious as to where it is situated and how much it has expanded the Kanesatake land base. Mr. Gabriel: I will have to get back to you on that. Senator Johnson: Are you satisfied with the pace and scope of the land acquisition process? Mr. Gabriel: Land acquisitions are very important to our community. When we got into the Land Governance Agreement, people said, "You did not get enough. There are outstanding grievances and claims. Why settle for so little at this point?" We had to convince people that to progress we had to set down some laws. We had to consider what rules would apply and how we will manage these properties and under what laws and regulations. Over the years, as our federal counterparts can testify, managing those properties has been a real problem. After all, they are being purchased. How will they be transferred or dealt with in the future? It became a very difficult situation to decide how to deal with it. As we move forward, the Land Governance Agreement will facilitate the process of moving forward and adding to the land base. Senator Johnson: You will provide us with some of those details. That will be excellent. As a political scientist by training, I am fascinated by your process and how you have accomplished it. Of course, more of this will be happening in our country as we proceed with self-government and various land claims. Do you think it would be of any value to our committee if Judge Poitras' decision were given to us for the record? Would that be helpful? We are trying to collect as much information as we can about how various groups are doing these things. Mr. Gabriel: We would be happy to provide Judge Poitras' report to you. We invested a great deal in the process with regard to time and resources. We have given the report freely to members of our community for their review. We are more than happy to provide it to senators for their review. Senator Johnson: Chief, were you pleased with that turnout? Did you feel satisfied? Were there more males versus females? Mr. Gabriel: The distribution between the sexes was fairly equal. I was satisfied with the turnout in that it was similar to what we have in council elections. Even though it was very tight I was satisfied because people are getting accustomed to a democratic system. They are feeling comfortable to picket, campaign and raise hell in a process like this. The democratic system is alive and well, even though it may not be perfect. The Chairman: I have a comment regarding women's issues. I see two women chiefs and Ms Etienne. I have no worry that women's issues will be addressed in your deliberations. Ms Choksi: If I might add, of the people who show up at the workshops, I would say 70 per cent are women. We know who holds the power in Kanesatake. Mr. Gabriel: If I could add one comment on that regard. We have had a women chief on our council, the elected system, since its inception in 1991. There has been at least one woman chief since the beginning of our mandate. That is continuing today and it is growing. We are happy to have everybody involved in our processes. Senator Fraser: On the matter of women, just for clarification, what law applies now on interests in land, and on matrimonial property; is it Quebec law? Mr. Gabriel: Currently, I believe it is the Indian Act that applies. Ms Choksi: The Indian Act is applied by analogy. On division of assets, according to the Supreme Court decision that many women's groups have been talking about - Derrickson v. Derrickson - provincial law applies to the extent that it determines how assets are divided upon the dissolution of a marriage. However, provincial law cannot apply to make a non-native spouse the owner of Indian lands, because Indian lands are held for Indians. That is one of the issues. Apart from that, if there are two Indian spouses, then provincial law applies as long as there is nothing to replace it. There is always a unique aspect to it, but it is not as if the entire provincial system of distribution of assets is completely jettisoned; it is just that some specific aspects of it cannot be applied to Indian lands. Senator Pearson: I would like to commend you for an extremely clear and respectful presentation, respectful to your own community and respectful to us. It was a pleasure to listen to and helpful to us in looking at this bill. At the beginning of your presentation, you referred to the construction of the Mohawk language immersion school. Are you a young population? Mr. Gabriel: We are a very young population. Our birth rate is several percentage points higher than the Canadian average. We do have, approximately, 200 to 250 students in our schools at present and it is expected to grow much more. When we built the immersion school or started a project, we had to anticipate over the next 15 years what that population would be so it could accommodate our growing population. The school was built based on those statistics. Senator Pearson: As you think about your code are you building in adequate space for young people to develop their democratic understanding? Mr. Gabriel: We must include everybody in the process. One of the things we are trying to do with our education system in general is put it back into the hands of the people, with an authoritative board to control it and to determine and orient how it meets our needs. Aboriginal nations often talk about the next seven generations, the children. We must talk less and do more. The immersion school, with the input from our elders and the youth, will solidify the place of youth in our society and culture. It is in that way that youth will become more involved in our democratic and political system. We must be very conscious of the fact that the youth need positive role models in the territory. To have positive role models, you must have something to model. You must have an economy in the territory. You must have business people, doctors, lawyers and politicians who are honest and have integrity, so that these children will have positive role models. That is very much about building a community or restoring a community such as ours. Senator Hubley: I would also like to congratulate you on a positive presentation this morning. There was one reference to elders in your presentation. I wonder if you might tell me how the elders were involved? How do they view this process? What are their views of this newness in your direction; how do they assess that? Ms Etienne: I will give a brief history of some of my recollections as a young person in relation to elders. In 1969, when the white paper was issued, I was about 12 years old. I have been involved a long time. There was a big community meeting in the Indian day school in the community hall in the village. That place was so packed, that we young kids were told that there was no room for us, but I knew there was something really important happening so I snuck in there. They had little closets in the back for coats and I hid in there. I remember that chief standing there. He was raising his fist and he was talking about how this white paper was no good for us. There was absolute agreement throughout that this White Paper was not good for us. Through this whole process, through the many hours that we were at these workshops, whether it was at the elders centres or having tea and cookies with people in their homes, the elders were involved. They shared their recollections and their history. One elderly woman shared with us the oral history that was told to her about the discussions of the treaty of 1760. Elders have shared these things with us through these processes and each generation has carried on. This is reflected in what is happening today. There are those who are gone now. My father was Chief Clarence. Chief Sharon Simon's father was chief. Every one of us here has had our people who have worked on this process and who have taught us the principles that must be carried on here. Before I get too emotional, I want to say that the elders have been with us every step of the way. There is still much work to do and our children are carrying on. My daughter is 13 years old. She was one of the first students of the Mohawk immersion school. We started out with three children. The language is so important. My mother is a product of residential schools. She was torn away from her mother when she was six years old and went to school in Sault Ste. Marie. She left there when she was 16. When she got home, she could not even talk to her mother. However, she managed to get the language back. She is now one of our language experts now. At 57 years old, she went back to McGill University to get her teaching degree. She is an elder of our community and still productive. She is almost 70 years old and she is sharing what she knows to carry on. The elders are with us all the way sharing what they know. Pretty soon we will be elders, too, and we will continue. Senator Cochrane: Continuing on that line of questioning, how many children are now in that school? Ms Etienne: I think there are about 35, although I am not exactly sure. Senator Cochrane: You say that within Kanesatake you have a non-discriminatory attitude toward non-natives. What provisions are there now for non-native female spouses should the Mohawk male pass away? Does the spouse retain the home, the land and all the assets she shared with her husband? Mr. Gabriel: I will give you an example that is very personal to me. My brother married a non-native woman when he was in his early twenties. Unfortunately, he passed away at the age of 32 as a result of leukemia. He left his non-native wife and his three children on property to which she could not hold title. In his will he left the property in trust to his children administered by his wife. He ensured that his children would be cared for and put his wife in charge of administering his estate. Our community has always been supportive of female spouses in such cases. My own mother was widowed 12 years ago and our community has always been very warm, receiving and open to her situation. There is not currently a written rule on how to deal with division of assets or residency when people die intestate, but it has become a custom to accept non-native spouses within the territory, as with many of our other customs in the territory. Senator Cochrane: Does the lady with the three children still own the home? Mr. Gabriel: She resides in the home. Senator Cochrane: Does she own it? Mr. Gabriel: No, she cannot own the property. Senator Cochrane: Do you have any idea when this might change? Mr. Gabriel: I am not sure when that might change or what provisions could be made. There is no question that it is a tough issue to deal with. Senator Cochrane: Clauses 12 and 13 of Bill S-24 say there are complex harmonization rules that are specific to the exercise of jurisdiction over the 57 Mohawk properties that are interspersed with the non-Mohawk properties in the village of Oka. Under what conditions may Kanesatake make laws with respect to the properties in Oka? Mr. Gabriel: We will be enacting laws over our own territory within the village of Oka. We will not be enacting laws on municipal properties per se. We have to come to an agreement on harmonization, on how the rules will apply and how they will be compatible with adjacent properties. Once we have the agreement on the mechanism of harmonizing of our laws, we will enact our own legislation on the 57 lots in the village of Oka. Those properties are already native properties and are part of our territory. We do not seek to impose our regulations on our non-native neighbours, but we want to ensure that where native and non-native people live close together we have a "good neighbour" clause to ensure that people will respect and understand each other. Senator Cochrane: How will a "good neighbour" clause apply? Mr. Gabriel: A "good neighbour" is general in certain aspects but is very specific with regard to what we want to accomplish in being good neighbours. Ms Choksi: To clarify, Kanesatake has the power to enact laws over these lots in the village. However, before Kanesatake enacts any law that addresses the development of those lands or changes the status quo on the size or the destination of the structure, we need a harmonization agreement in place with the municipality. That agreement will presumably address issues such as the process for changing a residential lot into a commercial lot. There may be a number of agreements. I foresee a general umbrella harmonization agreement that addresses the general principles and then specifics because these properties are all over the village and it may be important to have different rules applying to different properties. We want to be flexible. It has become clear from the meetings we have had thus far with the municipality and its technicians, that for both sides the ultimate priority is what the people living on the lands want. They will have to tell us what they went. We do not have any big plans. These are small properties - generally residential - and we will have to address it on the basis of what the occupiers of the land want. Senator Cochrane: At what stage are you in the negotiation of a harmonization agreement? Ms Choksi: We need the bill to be passed before we can actually negotiate the agreement. We have had discussions. We are now concentrating on services agreements. The 57 lots in the village, and a few others up the hill, are currently serviced by the municipality for water, sewage and other services. We need an actual contract for those services to continue, in order to pay for them. That is what we have been concentrating on, since it is a bread-and-butter issue that must be dealt with first. Senator Christensen: Continuing with harmonization, there is no provision for agreements to harmonize with provincial lands outside the municipality of Oka. Why was that not included? Mr. Gabriel: It was not an issue beyond the village of Oka. We have known from the outset that the most contentious area would be the village of Oka, our lands and the municipality's lands. As in other territories, there is a change of jurisdiction. There is an area where our laws will apply. There are areas beyond that where provincial law also applies. However, there is a specific area in the village of Oka where there must be harmonization, and that is where we foresaw the problem. It was not an issue of being neighbours with the bordering municipalities. That is a non-issue. Those are mostly agricultural areas where people are not living within a stone's throw of one another. The issues arose in the village of Oka. Senator Christensen: I am thinking of building codes, garbage disposal, sewage and so on on rural lands. That has not been a problem? Mr. Gabriel: It has been a problem to a certain extent, but we must deal with each problem incrementally. We must adopt our own community laws. We do have a set of community laws in place that will have to be re-adopted under this agreement in order for them to be of legal force. We do foresee the development of a land use plan in the future. Ms Choksi: Clause 11 of the bill requires that, in enacting any law that would affect environmental standards, if there are no federal standards in place, Kanesatake has agreed that its laws will at a minimum meet the standards applicable generally in the province. You will not find such a clause in the Indian Act. This is higher standard for Kanesatake than exists for most other First Nations communities. Senator Christensen: Certainly you had a very extensive process for consulting with people and getting them involved. I know how hard it can be to get people to come out and get involved. During these discussions, was there any discussion or suggestions made as to what would constitute a majority, whether it be a simple majority or 60 or 75 per cent or whatever? Was that matter discussed at any length? Mr. Gabriel: With regard to the question of what constitutes a majority or what would be an acceptable majority, it was clear from the beginning of this process that a simple majority would carry the day. We reminded people on several occasions that the voice of the majority of participating voters would carry forward in this agreement. The fact is that we did not have a legal requirement to conduct a ratification vote because we were not dealing with the interests of land or Aboriginal or treaty rights. We were not affecting anyone's interests with this agreement. There was not a necessity of having a double majority in this case. We reminded people it was a simple majority and that the majority of participating voters would carry. It was very clear in the discussions when the issue of interests in land came up that the people had to have very clearly a double majority when dealing with interests in lands. This is an issue where we went from including to not including the interests in land in this agreement. We wanted to establish a governing system in the meantime as we moved forward to tackle some of the very heavy issues that lie before us. We need some kind of stability, as we did in regard to dealing with lawlessness, with the police force. We have to deal with some of the everyday issues in order to be able to move forward on some of what might be called the more theoretical concepts. Matters of constitutional law or interest in land do not have the same effect on the population as do what I have been calling over the last number of years the "bread-and-butter issues" such as lawlessness in the community, the economy, or how to put food on the table. All of these issues have to be addressed as we move forward to tackle the more legalistic areas of the negotiation process, such as the interest in lands or the division of assets as we deal with women's issues. The Chairman: I have several questions. I received a map this morning of the territory. This is a very small part of the territory. I know this is an interim agreement and it is without prejudice so it will not affect any further land claims. Are you negotiating any further land claims and how would such negotiations affect this bill? Mr. Gabriel: Clearly, the bill provides for adding to the interim land base. We have undertaken with the federal government historical research on our grievances over the seigneury of Lac des Deux-Montagnes, which I believe you see outlined on the map. It is a very large tract of land compared with what currently exists. Yes, the interim land base will be added to with the provisions of the bill and the agreement. The Chairman: I had not realized this, but in 1851 there was a statute passed to allot reserve number 17, Doncaster, jointly with Kanesatake and Kahnawake. How have you dealt with that? You all have a great challenge ahead of you. It will be very interesting to see how you deal with this. What are you doing there? Mr. Gabriel: I would probably ask Chief Clarence Simon to speak later on in regard to the history of Doncaster and the work going on there. Traditionally, Doncaster has been set aside as hunting grounds for our people, both Kahnawake and Kanesatake. Only more recently have we seen more development in regard to some cabins and more permanent structures. There is a working group or committee struck between Kanesatake and Kahnawake in regard to some of the things we are talking about in this agreement: compatibility of their community laws and our community laws, their membership versus ours, who is permitted to be there and who is not. There is a real will there to work cooperatively in managing the Doncaster territory. Very clearly, it is a challenge. Sometimes the more people you have involved, the more difficult it gets. Overall, over the years, it has gone very well and there has been mutual respect in the Doncaster territory. The Chairman: It sounds to me as if it is more of a traditional territory for your hunting and gathering. Mr. Gabriel: That has been its role. My parents and I used to go blueberry picking and hunting up there. Traditionally it has been a hunting ground for our people, both Kanesatake and Kahnawake. The Chairman: I thank you all very much for coming before us. You have cleared up so many questions and issues. I am very pleased to see the chiefs here, especially the women chiefs. Not taking anything away from the men chiefs, but it is time that we all got involved to work together as Aboriginal people. Thank you all. The committee adjourned.