Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 4 - Evidence, May 8, 2001
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 8, 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 9:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bill. Senator Thelma J. Chalifoux (Chairman) in the Chair. [English] Good morning, Mr. Goyette. I must first apologize to you, my French is terrible. I can still sing in French but my language abilities are limited. Welcome to this important hearing. For many years I have been involved with Aboriginal land claims but I find that this is the most unique settlement and law that I have ever come across. This is very important because I believe it will set a precedent for other land claims issues, which is good. It shows that we are looking at different types and different kinds of resolutions to the issue of land claims for the Aboriginal people. I would like now to begin. Please proceed with your presentation. [Translation] Mr. Pierre Goyette: Madam Chair, I will be making my remarks in French, because my notes are in French. My interest in this bill stems from the fact that my wife and I have lived in the municipality of Oka for about 20 years. I am representing no one other than myself here, and I am commenting only on my own interest in this bill and the agreement that preceded it. Bill S-24 was tabled in the Senate on March 27. Its purpose is to implement the agreement signed on December 21, 2000 between the Mohawks Band Council of Kanesatake and the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. The agreement is entitled "An agreement respecting governance of the Kanesatake interim land base." I would like to make some comments and recommendations on a number of aspects of the agreement and the bill. Bill S-24 allows the Kanesatake Band Council to pass legislation on a number of important matters regarding lands located within the municipality of Oka. I will use the expression "former village" to refer to this municipality in my presentation. The municipality of Oka is the result of the relatively recent merger of the village of Oka and the municipality of the Parish of Oka, which surrounded the village. Now, it is a single municipality. Part 12 of the agreement signed on December 21, 2000, entitled "Relationship of laws," and clause 17 of the bill state that: A provincial law to which section 88 of the Indian Act applies or a municipal by-law, does not apply to the extent that it is inconsistent or conflicts with this Act or with a Kanesatake Mohawk law. Clause 17 of the bill also states, and I quote: In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between a Kanesatake Mohawk law and any other provincial law, the Kanesatake Mohawk law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict. Quite ironically, clause 17 of the bill also provides: In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between a Kanesatake Mohawk law and a federal law, the federal law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict. At the very least, I find it astonishing that the Minister of Indian Affairs, on the one hand, and the Parliament of Canada on the other hand, have granted, through an agreement in the case of the minister, and through a bill in the case of Parliament, the right to an Indian Band Council to pass laws that would prevail over those of the Quebec government and over the by-laws of the municipality of Oka. This is the case even though the Quebec government and the City of Oka were not parties to the agreement ratified by the bill. In presenting the bill on March 29 of this year, Senator Joan Fraser said, and I quote: The Quebec government was consulted and informed about the agreement and gave its general support. The municipality of Oka has also given the agreement its go-ahead. Furthermore, Senator Jean-Claude Rivest, said on April 5: [...] the Quebec government had not yet received adequate answers to the technical questions it had asked, because it had not been involved in the process. However, it is clear, despite these apparent differences of opinion, that neither the Quebec government nor the municipality of Oka are signatories to the December 21, 2000 agreement. And yet, in December 1996, there was an agreement to set up a police service in Kanesatake. The agreement was signed by three parties: Kanesatake, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. In my view, the example and precedent set in December 1996 should have been followed in this case, so that Quebec would be part of the agreement signed on December 21, 2000. This agreement deals with much broader matters - rather than the police services covered in the December 1996 agreement, most of which come under provincial jurisdiction. My second comment is about clause 2 of the bill, which implies that the Mohawks of Kanesatake may have some existing Aboriginal or treaty rights. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I do not think any such rights exist. However, I think that some light could be shed on this through serious historical and legal research. Third, even though the preamble to clause 7(1) mentions that the Mohawks have jurisdiction to make laws in relation to the use and development of the lands, most of the rest of the clause deals with legislation on matters other than land use. They are very broad powers and jurisdictions that would be granted, and further more have no limitations. In fact, the last sentence of the preamble to clause 7(1) reads as follows and I quote: [...] including in relation to [...] And in French: Cette compétence s'étend notamment à ce qui suit: [...] Four of the 11 powers set out following the preamble have to do with the use and development of the lands. The others are about other aspects such as health and quality of life. Since there is no restriction on the powers mentioned, because of the words "including" and "notamment", this means that the jurisdiction or the powers extend to other subjects that are not mentioned. Moreover, when the Mohawks presented the agreement to the community, they noted in an explanatory text that: [English] The matters listed are illustrations or examples of the type of matters over which Kanesatake has jurisdiction. They do not limit the jurisdiction of Kanesatake. [Translation] So the bill grants jurisdiction to make laws in relation to a land base that is not a reserve - this is made clear in the bill - and that is not a unified territory. We see from the map that there are no unified territories. With respect to the exercise of the various powers in the 50 or so lots, the explanatory text refers to "formerly the 57 lots", which are all these here in the former village. The situation will be very difficult and full of pitfalls for these 50 or so lots in the former village. The harmonization arrangement with the municipality of Oka set out in clause 13 deals with zoning only, and not with all the powers outlined in clause 7(1). My fourth comment is about the powers of the Mohawks of Kanesatake to make laws and the powers that they are granted under clause 7(1), and the power to create offences, specified in clause 7(2), which apply to the interim land base described in the schedule to the bill. When we look at the maps - and you have copies as well - that show the interim land base, with the parts in green being in the former village, we see that the land base is scattered among the land of the municipality of Oka. Since the latter is much larger than this area, it ends here, on the west side, and a little further on the east side. This scattering is particularly striking for the 50 or so lots located in the former village of Oka. It is easy to imagine how difficult it would be to exercise the many powers over isolated properties located in the middle of the former village of Oka, or even to create offences there, given that the former village, according to the municipality, consist of some 1,300 lots. It may be 1,300 properties, but I was told 1,300 lots. The December 21, 2000 agreement between the Mohawks and the Canadian Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs includes a schedule B which determines the land use and establishes a land use standard for the few Mohawk properties located within the former village. These zoning rules were established by the Mohawks and the minister, without the municipality of Oka being a party to the agreement. However, I am told that the municipality was consulted. Clause 13 of the bill refers to possible harmonization arrangements between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and the municipality of Oka, but only if the land use or land use standards for these Mohawks properties are significantly different from the uses or standards set out in Schedule B of the agreement signed on December 21, 2000. The zoning rules set out in Schedule B apply to the municipality in three sectors, which account for only a small fraction of the Mohawk properties, and do not allow for changes by the municipality that would be contrary to Schedule B of the agreement. At the moment, there are land uses that are different from those allowed in Schedule B. I have always referred only to the lots of the former village. My final comment is about clause 19(1) of the bill, which would allow the Governor in Council, by order, to add lands not mentioned in the schedule to the bill, should there be an agreement between the Kanesatake Band Council and the Canadian Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. The bill uses the word "interim" to describe the Kanesatake land base in the short title and in several other places. The Kanesatake interim land base is the one mentioned in the schedule to the bill, and consequently, is covered under legislation to be approved by the Parliament of Canada. Any addition to these lands would require only the approval of the Governor in Council without any review by Parliament or the Quebec government. The consequences of this could be extremely serious. The fact is that the land base is seen as interim, and it is presumably thought that it should grow. The Mohawks are continuing to claim rights over the whole Seigneurie of the Lac des Deux-Montagnes. We should remember that this Seigneurie covered an area of some 500 square kilometres along the shore of the lake from Pointe-Calumet to Saint-Placide - I apologize to those who are not familiar with the Lac des Deux-Montagnes - and to the north, past Saint-Colomban. This area therefore includes, in addition to Oka, the municipalities of Pointe-Calumet, and a host of others: Saint-Placide, Saint-Benoît, Saint-Joseph-du-Lac, Sainte- Scolastique, Saint-Hermas, Saint-Canut, Sainte-Monique, Saint-Augustin and Saint-Colomban, as well as the Mirabel International Airport. I find it unacceptable that such a large area of additional land could be added, without any review by the Parliament of Canada and without the agreement of Quebec. In conclusion, honourable senators, I would like to make the following six recommendations. I apologize if this is somewhat daring. I recommend the withdrawal of clauses 17(1) and 17(2), which give priority to the laws of the Kanesatake Mohawks over the laws of Quebec and the by-laws of the Municipality of Oka. I recommend that the representatives of the Government of Quebec be heard by this chamber, if they so request, since they were not a party to the agreement signed on December 21, 2000. Third, I would say that clause 3(2) is out of place or serves no purpose, in that it implies that Parliament acknowledges that the Mohawks have Aboriginal or treaty rights. Fourth, clause 7(1) gives the power to make laws on too wide a range of matters, and should be restricted to land use and development. Further more, the preamble to this clause should be restrictive in nature. Fifth, the land base should not include the 50 or so lots located in the former village of Oka. As a result, the references to the neighbouring Mohawk lands, in Schedule B of the agreement signed on December 21, 2000 and the harmonization arrangement with the Municipality of Oka should be removed. In addition, the first provision in the schedule to the bill should be amended to eliminate from the land the few lots in the former village of Oka. In brief, these lots in the former village should not constitute lands reserved for the Indians within the meaning of clause 24 of section 91 of the 1867 Constitution Act. Finally, clause 19(1) should be eliminated or amended, so that should any large piece of land be added, this could be reviewed by the Parliament of Canada. Senator Fraser: Mr. Goyette, with respect to clauses 17(1) and 17(2), which deal with the order of priority of Mohawk law, provincial law, federal law and municipal by-laws, I do not know if you understood that the provisions contained in these clauses is exactly parallel to those that already exist for Aboriginal lands covered by the Indian Act. Mr. Goyette: Yes. Senator Fraser: It is not a new regime that is being imposed on anyone at all. We are following an approach that is well established everywhere, in I do not know how many places in Quebec. I fail to see why that bothers you so much. Mr. Goyette: The point is that it is not a reserve territory, they are lands reserved for the Indians under the bill. Consequently - and I am not an expert in Aboriginal law - what you say applies particularly in the case of reserves such as Kahnawake, to take a specific example. Senator Fraser: The Indian Act applies on reserves. This bill establishes a similar approach. I think this is rather an advantage, because since the system is similar, there is already experience in many areas with the way this works. Everyone understands how it works. But in any case, you're persisting with your objection? Mr. Goyette: No, that is not the major point of my presentation. I do understand that constitutional law and the Indian Act apply this type of thing. Mr. Walling graciously sent me a copy of section 88, which is referred to in sub-clause 17(1). I have some trouble understanding section 88, but I do understand its main points, which are in keeping with what you are saying. I thought that since this was not a reserve, the provision might be adapted differently. Senator Fraser: You say that this is not the major point of your presentation. If I understand correctly, your major point is that these are lots located in the village of Oka. Is that correct? Mr. Goyette: That is one of the major points. The fact is that for some 1,300 lots scattered around on this map, powers may be exercised on small individual lots. We are talking here about powers in the area of water treatment, wildlife and fish, and so on. Some lots are on the water. They could pass laws that would take precedence over the laws of Quebec in an area that is considered to be reserved for Indians. Consequently, these laws would have priority over all other legislation, and could cover matters that are really difficult to regulate or apply. Senator Fraser: However, there are some fairly impressive and innovative measures to require the two parties to harmonize the way they use and develop their neighbouring lands. Does that not satisfy you? I was really very impressed when I read the reciprocal requirements that were built in, so that people could not do things that would harm each other. Mr. Goyette: The harmonization arrangement will deal with zoning matters only, not with the powers and jurisdictions set out in clause 7(1). The lots shown here are part of the schedule in the former village. These are the lots mentioned in point 1: "Kanesatake Indian Lands No. 16." I was told that that was "The formerly 57 lots." So the whole agreement, the whole land base includes these 57 lots. Clause 7(1), which gives the power and jurisdiction to make laws on a host of subjects applies to the interim land base, "The Kanesatake Mohawk interim land base," which is defined as the one described in schedule 1 of the bill. The harmonization arrangement described in clause 13, to which you referred to, deals with the zoning matters only. This is an enlargement of this area, and I have marked the lots in question in yellow. According to the December 21 agreement, there are some sections that must be used for single-family homes, for "commercial establishments," and for duplexes, in particular sectors. The land use and standards are also covered in the agreement. The agreement specifies how far "set back from the street you should have your building." The harmonization arrangement referred to is very restricted. There is no harmonization arrangement in this bill on all the other matters that could result in conflicts. Senator Fraser: But what are you afraid of? Mr. Goyette: For example, one of the powers mentioned, that could be implemented by the laws passed by the Kanesatake Band Council, concerns residency, fire safety and fire protection services and water supplies. It makes no sense to give a power to someone in an area where the land is quite unified, and also to give these rights to make laws over matters in areas that are spread around here. For example, this extends the jurisdiction over the maintenance of order and the prevention of disorderly conduct. Will they send in Kanesatake police when the regional police services will be provided by the Quebec police force? This will just create hassles for an area that is so ridiculously small proportionally. Of course, I am still referring to those who appear on this map. [English] Senator Fraser: We shall have to agree to disagree, Mr. Goyette. [Translation] I think it is quite reasonable that Mohawk lands should be managed by the Mohawks of Kanesatake. After what we have seen in the last few years, it appears that there has been a great deal of improvement in co-operation with the municipal authorities of Oka, and we can hope that this will continue. I now understand your point of view better. Mr. Goyette: I agree with you with respect to these territories. There has been an attempt at unification. There has already been quite a bit of unification of the land. An active band council, community facilities, a new immersion school being built, a home for senior citizens, and the detoxification centre are now located in the area. There are many community facilities, and a band council that enjoys community support. I find it reasonable that they should have the right to make laws regarding these territories, but my point concerns lands that are in the process of being unified. Senator Gill: Thank you for you presentation, Mr. Goyette. My first point has to do with your third comment. You say that clause 3(2) seems out of place or pointless in that it implies that Parliament recognized that the Mohawks had some Aboriginal and treaty rights. As you know, recognition of Aboriginal rights occurred when the Constitution was patriated. The Mohawks are part of the Indian nations of Canada. In my view, this is a confirmation of their rights that were recognized at the time of the patriation of the Constitution. Why do you say this clause serves no purpose? Mr. Goyette: I am familiar with the amendment regarding Aboriginal rights that were discussed at the time of the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, but I am talking about existing Aboriginal rights or rights that can't be proved. Clause 3(2) says and I quote: 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. That does not say that the Aboriginal rights are recognized. The use of the definite article "les" implies that there are some such rights. According to my consultations and research, I think the English version, which reads "any Aboriginal or treaty rights" is more indefinite. That is the point I was making. The bill implies, at least in its French version, that there are some such rights. I do not think there are any. If there are, they are recognized by the 1982 Constitution. Senator Gill: You think there are no Aboriginal rights for the Mohawks of Kanesatake? Mr. Goyette: There may be some Aboriginal rights, but not ancestral rights. Senator Gill: You distinguish between the two? Mr. Goyette: I read a document relating to a decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1997. It made a significant distinction between ancestral rights and Aboriginal rights. Senator Gill: Do you not think that as Indians, they have specific right regarding Quebec, regardless of whether these rights are Aboriginal or ancestral? [English] Senator Tkachuk: Can you finish answering the question on the Supreme Court decision on the difference between Aboriginal and ancestral rights? The Chairman: Senator Tkachuk, you are next on the list. Senator Gill: I lost my idea. The Chairman: You were talking about the ancestral rights, Senator Gill. [Translation] Senator Gill: I asked you whether you would not agree that, as Indians, they had specific rights, whether Aboriginal or ancestral? Mr. Goyette: Yes, that is clear. Senator Gill: Your fourth comment was about clause 7(1), which grants powers to make laws on too broad a range of matters, and should be limited to the use and development of the lands. You say that the preamble to this clause should be restrictive. Why do you say that? You mean that as a people or a group, the Mohawks cannot make laws or cannot consider legislation on the matters mentioned in this clause? Mr. Goyette: They can do that with respect to a number of matters. The beginning of subclause 7(1) states that they can make laws in relation to the use and development of the lands. [English] In English, the phrase is "to the use and development of the lands in the Kanesatake Mohawk interim land base..." [Translation] Their power should be limited to that: "the use and development of the lands." However, the clause goes on to list the powers. Some of them have to do with the use and development of the lands, such as: [English] (g) the construction maintenance, management and use of local works... (h) the construction or alteration of buildings, including inspection in connection with the construction or alteration; (i) zoning;... [Translation] The protection and management of wildlife and fish, and the maintenance of order, have nothing to do with the use of lands. That is why I say the clause should be restricted to what is described in the preamble. Second, I make the point that the clause defines 11 areas of jurisdiction, from a to k. At the beginning of the list, the clause states "including in relation to." That implies, and the Mohawks are of that opinion, because they wrote it in a text, that this is not restrictive and that their powers could cover a host of other areas. That is the reasoning behind my recommendation 4 to the effect that this clause should be limited to the use and development of the lands, as described in the preamble, and that the word "including" should be removed. The clause should describe only those things that have to do with the use and development of the lands. Senator Gill: If I understand correctly, earlier you said that you had no objection to the agreement generally, except that you disagreed with the reference to the former lands, the former Oka. Mr. Goyette: The former village. Senator Gill: Did I understand you correctly? Mr. Goyette: Yes. I agree with respect to the powers regarding the use and development of the lands in this large area. I am referring to the main area that ends at the Oka cemetery and also at Pointe-aux-Anglais, at the municipality. I think there could still be a unification effort. With respect to clause 7, I think the powers should be in relation to these lands, but only as regards "land use and development of the lands." Senator Gill: Why? Mr. Goyette: Because that gives us some powers, as a sort of significant municipality, without being a municipality subject to provincial authority. [English] Senator Tkachuk: Are those 50 lots in the former village of Oka owned by the reserve? The Chairman: There is no reserve. Senator Tkachuk: Who are they owned by? Mr. Goyette: They are owned by the federal government and considered in the schedule on the very last page of the bill. Kanesatake Indian Lands No. 16 includes those lands that are the property of the Government of Canada. Senator Tkachuk: Are they currently inhabited? Mr. Goyette: They are. Senator Tkachuk: You do not suggest taking away ownership, but simply that ownership should exist equally with the next door neighbour? Mr. Goyette: Sure. Senator Tkachuk: In other words, that lot - which is what it is - in town can be under the jurisdiction, although not the ownership, of the municipality. It seems to me, as has happened in many other agreements, that issue is confusing. I understand what you are saying. What happens when there is a police call? Which force do they call? If there is a local town police right next door, does this force ignore the call while the other police force comes? Do they get services? Do they pay tax? Will they be paying any tax on this? Mr. Goyette: I guess they will pay in lieu of taxes. Senator Tkachuk: They will pay a fee-for-service. How do they get water? Mr. Goyette: They get water through the municipality. Senator Tkachuk: Do they pay? Mr. Goyette: I have no idea. They probably do pay, or the federal government pays. I understand that these properties are occupied by Indians. I am not sure that all of them are. I have read that all of the properties are owned by the government. Most of these properties have been purchased by the federal government over the years, many of them since 1990, and then the lands are occupied by Indians and are subject to a lease agreement. Senator Tkachuk: I wanted the questions asked on jurisdiction because I do not understand those issues either. If the properties are scattered through the town, why are they not legislated by the municipality, as any other owned lot, whether it be owned by you, me, them or the federal government? There has to be some kind of organization to the management of lots. Mr. Goyette: It has been said, as it will be said again, that there is a legal vacuum existing if an agreement like this is not signed and if there is not an act to put it in place. However, there is no legal vacuum for these little properties. They are subject to the municipal bylaws. They are subject to provincial laws, federal laws and the Criminal Code. There is a case that went to the appeal court and the Supreme Court. Mr. Simon owned little properties and he built a house on a property on the main street of the city. It was two or three storeys high and was against the bylaw. It would have been against the bylaw that was agreed to in the December agreement between the Mohawk Council and the city because in sector one you can only build detached single family dwellings, semi-detached single family dwellings, townhouses or a bed and breakfast with a maximum of three rooms. Mr. Simon was building an apartment building. The matter went to court. Simon lost at the appeal court. The Supreme Court ruled that it should not be heard by the Supreme Court. That settled the matter and the building is not there any longer. There was no legal vacuum. There was a municipal bylaw. That was the whole case. However, if it becomes part of the Kanesatake interim land base then it will be subject to this law and it will be subject to the agreement, and the agreement will apply. My main point is that zoning is something that can be worked at and there is a harmonization agreement between these properties in yellow and the neighbouring lots. There will be an agreement for further harmonization provided by section 13 of the bill. There is no need, in my view, to enlarge it to all of the jurisdiction. Restrict it to the zoning agreement. Senator Tkachuk: If I can give you some solace in that regard, we have, in our province of Saskatchewan, taken it one step further. We have reserves in urban areas that were not reserves before but were part of negotiated land settlements. Many of these issues arose and were settled because neighbours have to be neighbours. They get together. They do not want to fight. They make agreements. If they do not want to have war on the streets, they make agreements that are similar. In the end, they will all be the same. They will settle the police and the fire dispute, as we have in Saskatoon. We have some major issues pending, such a tax-free 24-bay gas station. I do not know how that will be resolved but I think neighbours with good intentions have somehow been able to solve those problems within federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions. Somehow people get together and they solve their problems. I have always believed that, in the end, that will happen if people have good intentions. Mr. Goyette: In fact, there was an agreement in December 1996 for police service by the Kanesatake police force and it works. However, the provincial government was part of the agreement. Senator Tkachuk: I am sure that is what will happen with these areas. The people in charge of the land base will work out police protection, which may be a force other their own police force because it will be difficult to police one lot or one group of people living in one apartment block which is surrounded by another police jurisdiction. I believe that, in the end, they will work it out but it is something I have never believed these agreements do right. They always do these kind of things. That never makes any sense to me but somehow people overcome the mistakes of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the powers that be and solve the problems on their own. The Chairman: It is quite an interesting issue. Senator Rompkey: I am inclined, Madam Chairman, to leave it at that because I was heartened by the comments of Senator Tkachuk. He expressed my thinking. People do work out their problems. They must work them out. Neighbours do not want war, they want peace, so they work things out. With regard to the 50 houses, in principle, surely the people who live there have the same rights as other Aboriginals. Would you not agree that their rights must be protected just the same as those of others? It seems to me that the key word is "harmonization." The municipality and the band must harmonize. That is the fundamental principle here. On the other hand, in the final analysis, it seems to me that there are Aboriginal people on those 50 lots and they are not just like anybody else. They are Aboriginal people and they have rights under the Constitution. Those rights are in the Constitution. Over the last several years court judgments have consistently ruled that Aboriginals do have rights. Do you not feel that it is incumbent on all of us to see that those rights are protected? Do you feel it is important that we protect the rights of the 50 who live in those houses? Mr. Goyette: I believe that rights should be protected for the larger area. I have a document which was published by the provincial government on Aboriginal nations in Quebec in 1986. It is full of maps. I could not find any that have undivided areas. If you look at all the maps, they are all unified pieces of land. My point is that this is not part of the unified portion of Kanesatake. It is away from the main portion. They have rights, like all the other inhabitan6ts of Oka, but if they want to have more rights they can move to the more unified area. There are not many people concerned in those 50 lots or properties. Senator Rompkey: The other point that came to my mind, Madam Chairman, was with regard to the restriction of harmonization to zoning. Mr. Goyette mentioned wildlife and fish, but surely those are two areas in which the courts have consistently ruled that Aboriginal people have special rights. Wildlife has been part of the culture, part of their tradition. There has always been a special association between Aboriginal people and certain species of wildlife. They have always had access to wildlife. That involves the origins of their being. Do you not feel that areas like wildlife and fish must be protected as far as all Aboriginal people are concerned whether they are in the area where the main band is or whether they live in the 50 houses? Mr. Goyette: In the list of jurisdictions in clause 7(1), there are probably areas which are borderline between land use and land development, as the clause states. The phrase is "use and development of the lands." Wildlife and fish regulation is probably on the borderline between in concept and not in the concept of the use of land. That is probably one of the borderline areas. I made a list of these 11 jurisdictions that are listed in clause 7(1) and sometimes I arrived at four and sometimes I arrived at five that were, in my view, land use and development of the lands. That one was in between. You are probably right. The Chairman: Mr. Goyette, you have given a very good presentation but we are looking at people, at white people and Indians, at individuals and neighbours and this is what is happening. I am a Métis. We have over 99 properties in the City of Edmonton and we work closely with that city to make sure that we abide by all the laws of the city. This is common right across Canada. The lots that we are looking at, which you want the people to move out of, is Mohawk land. The Mohawks are landlords and they must have some sort of regulation to look after those lands in the village of Oka. The situation is like Senator Tkachuk says. Neighbours do not want to fight but the landlord, which is the Mohawk Grand Council, must have some jurisdiction over how the property is managed and looked after. [Translation] Senator Gill: I would like to raise two or three points. Aboriginal communities in Quebec and elsewhere also have dispersed populations along the North Shore, in Sept-Îles, for example. People moved there and this caused some fragmentation in the communities. So there are other communities, besides Oka, where there is fragmentation. Mr. Goyette: I think there is one in Sept-Îles. Senator Gill: Yes, there is the town, and the Indian reserve is beside it, and then there is another one further away, so there are non-Aboriginal residences beside Aboriginal residences, and so on. You know that there is a Memorandum of Understanding for the jurisdictions, which was signed by the Sûreté du Québec, the native police force and the Oka police in order to work together and to be able to work in all these different jurisdictions. That is very well covered. I'm sure you remember the Oka crisis. There were people who died, during battles amongst police forces. Now there is a Memorandum of Understanding and we can settle certain conflicts. Mr. Goyette: There was an agreement in 1996 between the Band Council, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec on police services. Following this agreement, they installed a police service at Kanesatake. They have an area to patrol. Senator Gill: Have things being working smoothly since then? Mr. Goyette: Yes there do not appear to be any problems. Senator Fraser: I would like to come back to the issue of the lots being sprinkled around the village. I think that in Quebec we have always had differences in jurisdiction. For example on the Island of Montreal - which I am more familiar with than the Oka region - there have been federal lands, provincial lands, and church lands. And there were different systems according to the religious order. First we had religious school boards and then later linguistic school boards which have territories that overlap. For the time being we have a large number of municipalities. Some are encircled by other municipalities and things work marvellously well. Things are not going to move along as smoothly once they are all amalgamated, but that is another story. Given that throughout our history, for centuries, there were different jurisdictions for different circumstances, I do not see why it would be so difficult in this particular case. This situation exists and reflects reality. Is it because these are Mohawks that you are fearful? Is it because of the 1990 crisis? Or is it simply a matter of principle that you want everything to be uniform from one element to another? Mr. Goyette: I am of the opinion of those who say that we are overgoverned. With this bill, we would be establishing yet another level of government for these few small lots. I said that I would agree with another order of government in this type of case, but not for lots which are dispersed as these are, 50 lots out of 1,300. It is simply another level of authority. They already have the authority of two levels of government and the municipality, which regulates everything that is happening in this little sector, we do not need a fourth level to create legislation that would apply only to 57 lots. It is not simply a distribution amongst different levels of government as you are indicating, it is a distinction applied to several lots within many other lots with yet another power to legislate. [English] Another order of government to make laws. Senator Tkachuk: I can guarantee you this will result in hundreds of hours of billable hours for lawyers. The Chairman: Mr. Goyette, I want to thank you very much. It is very important that Senate committees, when considering legislation, hear all sides of the story. It is very important that we hear your views, as well as everyone else's. Thank you so much for coming. The committee adjourned.