Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 4 - Evidence, May 9, 2001
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 9, 2001 The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill S-24, an act to implement an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting governance of certain lands by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an act in consequence, met this day at 5:51 p.m. to give consideration to the bill. Senator Thelma J. Chalifoux (Chairman) in the Chair. [English] I wish to welcome the witness. We are interested to hear your presentation. Please proceed. [Ellen Gabriel spoke in her native language.] Ms Ellen Gabriel: Honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to express a point of view that, time and time again, continues to be ignored. As a traditional Longhouse person under the protection and laws of Kanianera'kó:wa of the Iroquois Confederacy, I am obligated, as are other Longhouse people, to do the utmost to protect the rights and inheritance of future generations of Kanien'keháka. During the spring and summer of 1990, I was part of a group of Kanien'keha people trying to protect the purity of a land that was not yet developed and has been under the care and ownership of Kanien'keha people of Kanesatake since time immemorial. On July 11, 1990, we, as peaceful protestors, were fired upon by Surete du Quebec. In spite of the numerous human rights violations practised by the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada we, as Mohawk people, tried to negotiate a peaceful disengagement. This evolved into so-called negotiations with the provincial and federal governments, even though the only person on the government side with an actual mandate was Alex Paterson, whose mandate was the dismantling of the barricades on the Mercier Bridge. The Government of Canada's representative, Bernard Roy, did not have a mandate of any sort. However, he did promise the Longhouse people, in front of international observers, that the Government of Canada would negotiate with the traditional Longhouse people of Kanesatake concerning the land and longstanding grievances after the barricades came down. It has been 11 years since that historic period of time. The Government of Canada has yet to consult the Longhouse people on any matter. Our government predates European arrival, its birth being 1142 A.D. During the 500 odd years that we have experienced European contact, we have never surrendered any parcel of our territory - not to Canada, not to England or any other European country. Instead, you have imposed a system of government, under the Indian Act, in which men predominantly assume and become the decision makers. This contradicts our culture and traditions as it is the women who are the owners of the land and make the decisions concerning the land. Under the band council system, the Government of Canada is dealing with itself as the band councils are really just another department of Indian affairs. As far as Longhouse people are concerned, band councils - whether in Kanesatake, Kahnawake, Akwesasne or any other band council on our territory - do not have the right to negotiate in areas concerning land and jurisdiction over land. This land governance agreement, therefore, will just create another event like the events seen in 1990. Is that what the Government the Canada really wants? From what we have read of this agreement, this is all for the convenience of the Government of Canada and the Municipality of Oka. Oka is Kanesatake and we have seen a real danger in the semantics used in this paper. We have never ceded the lands of what is known as Oka, nor any of the surrounding municipalities. One of the disturbing features of this whole process is there has not been any moratorium on development in Kanesatake in spite of the fact that in 1990 this was one of our grievances. As you are all well aware, once land has been developed the Government of the Canada makes it impossible to reclaim that land. We have not seen, anywhere in this paper, the inclusion of Oka Park or surrounding lands, stolen from the Mohawk people by force through the Sulpician Seminary. No amount of dollars can soothe the hurt and trauma endured by those of us who survived the summer of 1990, and now you want us to accept this piece of paper, which is, in essence, a form of surrendering our jurisdiction over our territory, our homeland, once and for all to the Municipality of Oka and to the Government of Canada. In spite of the terms used to deceive us in thinking that we will be self-governing through this agreement, we cannot help but be sickened by the thought that the so-called "harmony" between Oka and Kanesatake is really a ploy to insert municipal bylaws and enforce provincial jurisdiction over our territory. We have never allowed and accepted that Canada's fiduciary responsibility be passed on to the province. Canada has received numerous letters stating that no agreement between band councils and itself is legally binding to the Longhouse people of the Iroquois Confederacy. Yet in spite of all these notices and statements of why this is so, the Government of Canada continues to make agreements concerning jurisdiction of our territories with band councils. Band councils cannot represent themselves as a nation as they are the creation of the Government of Canada - designed originally to undermine the power of the women and, consequently, the traditional form of government of the Iroquois Confederacy. This form of ignorance is, in essence, genocide. If you refer to international law, you will see that the Longhouse people have been enduring genocide. The case in point is the crisis of 1990 in Kanesatake, which was an international incident. According to international law, every person is entitled to his or her own nationhood, language, religion and land base. Canada has been denying Aboriginal people these rights through its imposed system of governance and citizenship. I believe there is a law within international law called "the semblance of integrity of law." In other words, nothing is legal unless there is integrity in a law. There does not exist any in this land governance agreement. Canada continues to deal, with its own departments within Indian Affairs and Northern Development, through band councils. These are, in essence, banana republics, which contain no voices until the next elections. That is why we feel that passing Bill S-24 is illegal. Should you decide that this bill will pass and in the future, whether it be in the not-too-distant future or in the generations to come, should another conflict arise because of this agreement we, the Longhouse people of the Five Nations Iroquois Confederacy, will hold you all personally responsible as well as the present members of the Kanesatake Band Council, their negotiators, the Oka Municipality, the present Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Prime Minister of Canada. The Longhouse traditional people are not unreasonable. We have our own laws, customs, traditions and language. Our language has been decimated by the oppression of 500 years of European contact and now, by our own people under the band council system, who pay lip service to supporting it. We have always sought to live in peaceful co-existence with non-aboriginal people. Like other nations, we will defend our land and our people if they are threatened. We feel that this agreement is just that: A threat and another act of genocide. Kanesatake has existed as a community for thousands of years. Pottery shards found in what is known as Oka Park date to 1000 B.C. In the condolence right of a traditional chief, Kanesatake is mentioned. This agreement totally ignores the fact that our ancestors lived here because it gives jurisdiction to the province and to the Municipality of Oka on our territory. We cannot agree, or consent, to this bill because we have never ceded our territory to the Government of Canada. Senator Fraser: Ms Gabriel, I understand the principles and obvious amount of emotion with which you speak. However, in terms of fact, I would have thought that, while this deal is not anywhere near sufficient in your terms, you would have considered it a step forward because, in the aftermath of the Simon case, the Mohawk lands in Oka were governed by municipal and eventually provincial land management rules, whereas the bill gives back control of those lands to the people of Kanesatake. I do not understand why you see this as a wholly negative arrangement. Ms Gabriel: During my statement, I mentioned band councils being just another Department of Indian Affairs. I am not sure if you have ever heard that we do not consider ourselves Canadians citizens. Senator Fraser: I have heard that many times. Ms Gabriel: How could we, as a nation, accept jurisdiction of municipal bylaws, provincial laws and a band council operating under the Indian Act? I do not see this being advantageous to anyone, traditional or not. I see this as surrendering certain rights. I see this as, once and for all, the Municipality of Oka getting its foot in the door. The Municipality of Oka has never reached out a hand of friendship to us unless there was money behind it. It has never apologized to us for what they have done to us. As far as I am concerned, as are those who have read the bill, this does nothing to promote our sovereignty. This does nothing to promote our identity as a nation, as a group of people under international law. This bill is more a step backwards than anything. Senator Fraser: If I understand your fundamental position, you would prefer not to have any interim agreements, you would prefer to hold out for a final settlement of a much broader nature on the terms that you would prefer to see. Is that correct? Ms Gabriel: We have stated this time and time again. We stated to Bernard Roy that we are always under time constraints to settle things. When it comes to issues where we see development of land continuing on our territory in Kanesatake, or what the municipality would call Oka where that does not stop and we look at all the other issues concerning our sovereignty with the Government of Canada and being totally ignored in this process, how could you justify what is written in this paper as being something that is legitimate, as being something that is good for our people? Senator Fraser: When you say you have been totally ignored, we have had witnesses who have described a consultation process about this deal that left seasoned politicians saying, "My goodness, I have never seen such a conscientious, detailed and prolonged period of consultation of every single Mohawk who could be reached, whether they live in Kanesatake or had moved." It was extraordinary and it took place over months and months. Do you not think that was consultation? Ms Gabriel: Do you think that was an honest report that was given to you? Senator Fraser: Since it came from several different sources I would tend to believe it, yes. Ms Gabriel: I do not trust the process. Many of the people who live in Kanesatake and who will be directly affected do not see this as a good thing. They do not see it as being anything positive, whether they are traditional or not. Whether or not the band council says that it consulted all the Mohawks that it could possibly find for this process, I find that really hard to believe. Senator Gill: Yesterday we heard that this year is the 300th anniversary of the signing of this great peace. I do not wish to compare the two situations, but I imagine at that time people spoke a great deal about the conflicts and everything. I imagine that 300 years ago the situation was not nice. Now, in spite of not utilizing the non-Mohawk institutions, do you think that we must work to find a way to be, as much as we can, at peace with our neighbours, Aboriginal, Indian or Mohawk people and amongst the Mohawk people, with non-Mohawk people. Can a way be found in spite of obstacles? Do you have something to suggest to find a way where eventually maybe we will be able to find something that will fit every culture or every nation? I am talking about the Aboriginal people. In the meantime, is there some way to work together? I am talking about your nation in Kanesatake. Ms Gabriel: We are peaceful people as well. To have harmony between one another, you need first to have respect for that other person. You need to have an open mind and understanding of others' points of view. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. Within the Mohawks, because of the oppression we have faced, we are at the point now where there is a significant amount of disagreement in our communities, not just Kanesatake. Others before me have stated that part of the conflict comes from the Government of Canada implementing a band council system or an Indian agent or whatever to divide and conquer people so that we are fighting over money or things that really destroy the peace amongst ourselves and consequently, of our neighbours. The great peace did not last long. The 11 nations, particularly the Mohawk Nation, were molested by the priests, who ordered their armies and their police forces to forcibly remove people from their lands and keep them in poverty, even though they were agricultural people, especially the Mohawks. There are many things that must be addressed to reach the harmony that you are talking about. Senator Gill: In spite of what you said, the peace was signed. I have a copy of the old treaties. The Mohawk nations signed the peace. Ms Gabriel: I know. Senator Gill: I imagine that everything was not perfect, but they signed the treaty. Ms Gabriel: Our nation has always wanted to have peace with the Europeans and their descendants. We always asked for peace. The disruption of peace has always been initiated by the Europeans and their descendants. Senator Fraser: I was disturbed when you said that implementing this agreement could lead to more events like those of 1990. Was that a threat? Ms Gabriel: It was not a threat. It is more a case of seeing history repeat itself and laying the groundwork for the potential of having that happen again. Before 1990, we attempted many things. We even issued papers to the Government of Canada and asked for moratoriums on the land that was in dispute. We see this land agreement as ignoring the voice of the people again - ignoring our sovereignty. It implements municipal bylaws, whether people like to agree with that or not. There is a clause that states that if there is a disagreement, the code will take effect. However, the municipality has the right to implement provincial laws in a disagreement. There is an example of jurisdiction being taken away from the Mohawk people. Senator Fraser: Without looking up the passage to which you refer, my recollection is that it appeared to be a carefully designed provision to put pressure on both sides. It was crafted to ensure that both sides respected the other's rights, needs and concerns. It did not strike me as being quite as unilateral as you suggest. The Chairman: Ms Gabriel, you do not support the bill. In your opinion, what would you be a solution to the jurisdiction of the land that is involved in the bill? Ms Gabriel: My solution is for the Government of Canada not to interfere with our sovereignty and jurisdiction over our territory. The Chairman: Your territory was given, by the King of France, in 1717, to a religious order, from what I understand. The government has seen fit to start buying back some of the land mentioned in the bill. Therefore, if you were given back all the land, what would you do? You do not consider yourself part of Canada, therefore, you would not qualify for any benefits at all. How would you, your family, your children and your grandchildren survive in this new mosaic of Canada? Ms Gabriel: We have approximately 98 million acres of land that are our territory. We could survive just like anyone else who comes here. Americans come to Canada to work and Canadians go to America to work. We see the future and we know what is coming. We see a threat again and we are trying to stop that threat. The ratification process was passed by only two votes and the majority of people did not participate in this. It passed by two votes. The Longhouse people did not vote. There are many others as well who did not vote. As far as I am concerned, if you put those two numbers together, they would far outnumber the ones who voted "yes." In 1924, Canada passed an act outlining the Iroquois Confederacy. There was a trust fund of lands and resources in mines. That was under the name of Iroquois Confederacy. It was hundreds of millions of dollars at that time. If you calculate the interest from 1924 until 2001, do you think we can survive? The Chairman: It takes more than money. Ms Gabriel: I understand that. You were asking me a practical question about how my family and I would survive. We were also farmers. Within the band council system there is a group of people that makes unilateral decisions on behalf of the whole community. The whole community does not know what is going on. It only knows what is happening when James Gabriel calls a press conference. There are decisions being made, supposedly on our behalf. Mike Mitchell and Joe Norton have surrendered chunks of our territory - not just our territory, but our rights as well, and we cannot accept that any longer. We have issued many letters. If you look in the files of the Governor General and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development you will see those letters. You will see in Bernard Roy's notes that he requested some kind of agreement between your government and us. We were not asking to be the ones to do it, but we were asking for the government to do it. We have been asking for peace and we have not received it. The Chairman: Who do you consider your government? Ms Gabriel: The traditional chiefs, the clan mothers and the people. Senator Johnson: Is there any form of land-based governance that would suit you? In keeping with that, is there any process that you would approve that would make you feel more comfortable with any piece of legislation in this respect? Ms Gabriel: Yes, if the government has the Gravelle-Levesque report, of the mid to late 1980s, in its possession, which we have been unable to get through the Access to Information Act, it stated what our community wanted for its governance. I know that, on governance, the explanation is more suitable, in my opinion. It is a true democracy, because the people have a voice. The Iroquois Confederacy was a democracy. The Americans borrowed it from us. The people had an equal voice, not just a vote every four years or every two years with whoever is elected saying, "We are going to be doing this without any consultation with the people." It was a governance that was ecologically in harmony with the earth, where men and women had an equal say and money was not the motivating factor for people to be in leadership positions. Basically, it was a traditional form of government. People were allowed to take their time, without the stress of time constraints or of being told, "You have to make a decision now. You have tomorrow to decide if this is good or not." That was our way. We had meetings and went around to all the clans to decide how it would be done. It is a process where we agree to disagree as well. It is not just a consensus. Senator Johnson: It is very hard to argue or disagree with anything you have said - ecologically in harmony, working together, men and women, traditional forms of government. However, there is nothing we are doing now that can make you feel that any of this can come to pass under the present system. Ms Gabriel: None of it has come to pass as of yet. Existing band council, no. This agreement, no. I live not far from a landfill. We all have water wells and many people are afraid of drinking their water. I live near a golf course, which is also contaminating my water. If I decide to move, I will lose some of my rights. There is such a ghetto in all our communities. We are ghettoized by this form of so-called reservation. I know we are not a reserve under the Indian Act - and this is going to the Queen - but if we are not a reserve, then why in 1991 did a plebiscite occur in our community? It was illegal. Senator Johnson: I have one final question. If this bill goes ahead, do you feel that you will lose your voice? Ms Gabriel: Yes, definitely. I will, as will others like myself, traditional or not. Senator Johnson: How many people feel the way you do? Ms Gabriel: We do not usually give numbers, but I know there is a majority of people who do. Senator Johnson: I respect that. I was just curious to know how many other people would feel they have lost their voice as well. Ms Gabriel: Many people do. Senator Tkachuk: Could I ask questions about their development corporation? Are you aware of it, and how do you feel about what they are trying to do and the economic development they say they are trying to bring to your people? Do you feel that is a democratically run, non-profit organization? Ms Gabriel: No, I do not believe it is a democratically run, non-profit organization. It is again like the band council. The power is held by just a few individuals in the community who do not consult the community. I learned of it when this land governance agreement came out. We looked on the Internet to see who was sitting on this board. Other than that, access to this kind of information was not given until that time. Senator Tkachuk: They told us that it was a non-profit organization which usually operates through some kind of membership format. Do you feel that you are a member? Were you aware of a meeting being called? Were you invited to elect the board of directors? Ms Gabriel: No, there was no public meeting called and no public notice given to the community concerning this non-profit organization, none whatsoever. Senator Tkachuk: How would they normally post notices? Would they display posters or send letters? Ms Gabriel: Occasionally we receive letters in our mail boxes. That is how it is usually done. For elections, posters are put on trees and telephone polls and there are mailbox flyers. The Chairman: Once again, thank you very much. I appreciate your presentation. Do you have any written material that you would like to leave with us? Ms Gabriel: Yes, I do. I can give you a copy. The Chairman: Does the committee agree that we table this? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Your presentation will definitely be looked at and considered and really taken care of. Ms Gabriel: I thank you very much for listening to me. I hope that my words have not offended any one. I thank you again. The Chairman: I will ask the next witness to come to the table. We have a quorum. Mr. Patry, would you introduce your colleague beside you, please. [Translation] Mr. Yvan Patry, Mayor of the Municipality of Oka: I would like to introduce the people accompanying me today. Ms Daoust is the Secretary-Treasurer of the Municipality of Oka. I also have two Oka municipal councillors with me, Mr. Paul Clément and Mr. Luc Lemire. I have been mayor of the parish of Oka for 15 years, and for the past two years of the greater municipality of Oka. [English] The Chairman: First of all, welcome to our committee. We appreciate your taking the time to come to see us because it is very important that we hear all sides. Mr. Patry: When it is a good agreement like this, it is nice for me. [Translation] I am pleased to appear before your committee to share my observations with you concerning the passing of the legislation that will ratify the Agreement with respect to Kanesatake Governance of the Interim Land Base and the Code on the exercise of government powers, which the Kanesatake Mohawks have supported. As you no doubt are aware, we were very pleased to see the Kanesatake Mohawks vote in favour of this agreement. As mayor of the municipality of Oka, I saw our Kanesatake neighbours' decision as a step in the right direction. We have in fact received a very clear signal from the Kanesatake Mohawk community: the time has come to move forward and work together towards the development of our respective communities. As soon as I heard the results of the vote, I invited the people of Oka to do the same, and to look to the future. This is an important agreement, because it gives us the means to achieve harmonious regional development, a priority shared by all in Oka and Kanesatake. No one in Oka wants to relive the crisis of the early 1990s. These events made the front pages of newspapers worldwide, and it also profoundly affected the lives of the people of Oka and of Kanesatake. This crisis cost both of our communities. It took a long time to mend the fences, both for the people of Oka and for the people of Kanesatake. After the summer of 1990, the federal government compensated some people through the purchase of properties at the centre of the dispute. This initiative allowed several of my fellow citizens to slowly get over the loss of their homes. However, this does not mean that all the wounds have healed. There are still divisions in our community, as well as in our neighbours' community. But the majority of the Kanesatake Mohawks and the people of Oka, who are in daily contact with one another, have no desire to relive the violent clash of the 1990 crisis. We therefore let the federal government and the Kanesatake Mohawks negotiate between themselves. It took ten years of discussions and numerous consultations. The process was long and sometimes arduous, but as the old saying goes, all things come to those who wait. Thanks to numerous initiatives stemming from our respective communities, we have created a climate favourable to the economic development of the region. Over the last ten years in Oka, we have forged ahead and worked hard to build something warm and welcoming. We have had to roll up our shirt-sleeves, and we have had to find effective solutions. In recent years, several local initiatives have paved the way, be it the creation of a tourism committee, the creation of Journées de la culture, the special school program, special tours or the development of the agri-food road, the historic trail - a project which we did with the federal government - or the revitalization of Oka's town centre. With time, concrete steps were taken by the Kanesatake Mohawk leaders. The creation of a Mohawk police service, and the setting up of an elders' home on native land are evidence of this new economic and social ownership of their future, which has been a significant stabilizing force in their community. This stability is essential to lay the foundations for solid economic development and to encourage investments and job creation in a community that is very much in need of this. In a twist of fate, the events of the summer of 1990 piqued the curiosity of several people who had followed these events through the media. They came to visit us and were pleased to discover the attractions of our community and our region. Since 1992, our statistics show an increase of 475 p. 100 in the number of people patronizing our tourist kiosk. Our visitors come mainly from Quebec and more and more from Europe and Asia. The events of the summer of 1990 are now a thing of the past, and are a lesson to one and all. Those who experienced the crisis also learned lessons from it. We want no more confrontations. Moreover, when the time came to merge the municipality and the parish of Oka, everything was accomplished through negotiation, with no election. We did not even need to have a vote to know whether we were for or against the merger. Today, things have changed between the Kanesatake Mohawks and the people of Oka. I have great respect for the Mohawk Grand Chief, James Gabriel. We have met several times, and at each meeting, I was amazed to see to what degree we were on the same wavelength and how much we shared a common vision. I think that both of our communities want to encourage a climate that is favourable to development. The municipality supported the Canadian government and Mohawk leaders' initiative, which brought about the agreement ratified by the Kanesatake Mohawks. We particularly admired the solemnity with which this agreement was reached, especially the democratic process surrounding its passage. The municipal council of the municipality of Oka and the majority of the citizens of our municipality have always maintained that it was up to the people of Kanesatake to decide on their future. The Kanesatake Mohawks know what is best for them and we respect their decision. For our part, we intend to promote co-operation. The agreement on the management of Kanesatake lands by the Mohawk community, which was ratified by the Mohawk people, clarifies the legal context surrounding the use of land neighbouring the village of Oka. The people of Oka believe that the Canadian government is promoting dialogue rather than confrontation in the courts, through its recognition of the discretionary powers that the Mohawks will now have on the Kanesatake Interim Land Base. Furthermore, the clause dealing with harmonization of municipal by-laws is in keeping with this. It effectively defines a framework that will encourage the resolution of issues in the future, rather than turning to litigation as has been done in the past. Despite the cumbersome process of harmonization, we are confident that the parties have the best interests of both communities at heart, and will put in the necessary effort so things work well. It is merely a question of common sense. As elected officials, it is up to us to promote dialogue and to build the solid foundations that will allow both the people of Oka and Kanesatake to ensure the harmonious development of the Oka region. Recently, we invited Kanesatake Mohawk Chief, James Gabriel, to the regional Chamber of Commerce. He was warmly welcomed. The message he received was very clear and it is the same message that I would like to send to you today on behalf of the people of Oka. More than ever, I am convinced that with this agreement, we have turned over a new leaf. The time has come for us all to focus on the future. Senator Fraser: I cannot tell you just how moved I am to hear you, as someone who witnessed the events of 1990 from a distance. We heard Chief James Gabriel tell us the same things concerning the collective desire to work together towards harmonious development. There are steps that must be followed to achieve a harmonized system. Where are you at in this process? Mr. Patry: First of all, we must finalize the supply of services agreement: water, sewers, firemen's services. Some work has already been done, but as soon as the bill is passed, we will have to work on the harmonization of zoning and construction by-laws. This is what the agreement is mainly concerned with. Senator Fraser: Do you feel there are some points that are more sensitive that others in the coming negotiations? Mr. Patry: It is a package. At the end of the meeting, I will give you one of the municipality's recommendations. There are two points in the text of the agreement that bother us somewhat, but overall, it is better than the status quo. The harmonization will bring about dialogue. In this way, we will not always be calling lawyers to defend us before the courts. You must realize that this is an agreement with our day-to-day existence in mind. I heard Ms Gabriel's testimony, and I have great respect for her. I was born in Oka. My family came to Oka a long time ago. I am 53 years old and my best friends have been Mohawks. I don't see why that would change today. I get up in the morning, I go to the market and to the post office and I meet Mohawks. This agreement foresees good neighbourliness. We are not talking about the Mohawks' ancestral lands. We are not taking that away from them, this is not what we want. I say so in my presentation. We simply want to get along with everyone. Senator Fraser: We heard Ms Gabriel tell us that on the Kanesatake side, the people did not agree. Mr. Goyette, from the municipality of Oka, appeared before our committee and told us that he also was against the agreement. Obviously, in any democratic society, there are disagreements. Without having done a poll, can you tell us if the majority of the people in Oka agree with you? Mr. Patry: People do not want to relive the events of the past. We no longer want to look to the past, we want to look to the future. As regards the construction and development problem, it is very difficult for the moment. This bill will allow us to work together, to understand each other, and to move forward. I examined Mr. Goyette's speech, and I noted that he had not understood the substance of the bill very well. If he understood it better, perhaps he could accept it more. As mayor, I will use every possible means to sell this bill to the people. The people do not want to relive the problems that they have experienced in the past. We can keep the status quo, but there will still be problems because it is a question of jurisdiction. If we stick with the Simon case, that means that tomorrow morning, the municipality will have the right to enforce its regulations throughout the whole territory. It is a crisis problem. If I go to certain parts of Kanesatake and I start issuing construction permits, there will be problems. Bill S-24 will settle these problems. This does not take anything away from any kind of negotiation on Native land claims. This has already been going on for 200 years. Are we capable of finding a way to work together on the development of our two communities without being obliged to call on lawyers to tell us what we have a right to? That is how we see things on the municipality of Oka side. I have no doubt that the people of Oka understand this as well. Senator Gill: You say you have no doubt that your people will accept this. Do you base your opinion that the people are ready to accept this on good information? Mr. Patry: If the people accepted that the federal government and the Mohawk community negotiated an agreement of this kind without the participation of the municipal council nor of Quebec, it is because they are ready to recognize that they are able to seriously negotiate an agreement. I stress that in my presentation, in fact. It would be difficult for us, having said that, to then say that we do not approve of the agreement. In both communities, there are some people who are for and others who are against. According to democratic principle, if a referendum is necessary, we will have one, but I do not feel that people will take it that far. Senator Gill: You lived through quite dramatic events at Oka and in Kanesatake. Other municipalities in Quebec could experience similar situations. What advice would you give to other mayors in order to avoid a repetition of these events? Mr. Patry: I can sum it all up in a single expression: talk to each other. It is much better than confrontation. I experienced the Native crisis, as much through the Mohawk community as through our community. We should not have to talk about crises ever again. Otherwise, we are all losers. Senator Gill: You have lived together for over 400 years. Mr. Patry: Confrontation never settles anything. Patience is much better. Senator Pearson: We received your remarks concerning certain points of the bill. I would like for you to explain what this is about to us. I agree with you when you say that if things are not very clear, this may cause problems. Mr. Patry: According to the recommendations of our lawyer, we first of all need more precise geographical coordinates. Presently, we are working with maps. They do not need to be official, but we would like them to be more precise. Secondly, as concerns environmental protection measures, we find that the wording is not the same in French as it is in English. A change is needed. [English] Senator Johnson: How do you see things evolving after the passage of Bill S-24? Do you have a longer-term vision that you can share with our committee now that this is in the works? What are your hopes and aspirations for this agreement? [Translation] Mr. Patry: Little by little, we will learn to work together. That is the first thing I see in this bill. We must also learn to respect each other enormously. We must continue, for the sake of our children, to develop the beautiful region in which we live. It is not a question of changing the character of these two communities. The bill does not say that. The bill simply says we should live as good neighbours. To see the two communities working together as they did when I was young, would be the ideal for me. To relive the years before 1990, whether or not I am still the mayor, is what I would wish for all of the descendants of both communities, because they will live together for a long time yet. I see a glimmer of hope in this bill. It is hardly restrictive for us and it contributes to a better understanding of the situation. [English] Senator Johnson: Do you feel that you can work together with Madam Gabriel and help to address her concerns? Can things be worked through together? [Translation] Mr. Patry: The problem that Ms Gabriel raised earlier is within her community. I have no business interfering in Mohawk affairs. As I have already mentioned to the Grand Chief, the municipality is prepared to work in every way possible to help development, whether it be economic or not. I will give you an example. An immersion school for the Mohawk community is being built in Oka. We bent over backwards to amend the municipal by-laws so that the school could be built in the location that had been chosen. We did not protest and say that this was not a good place to build the school, but on the contrary we found that this was a wonderful project. This is proof that the municipality of Oka does not want to block Mohawk projects. Whether the project comes from the Band Council or from the Long House, I have no problem with that. The problems crop up when we do not talk to each other, when we do not understand each other. I am not going to interfere in Mohawk administration, just as the Mohawks will not do so in our municipal administration. We must know how to respect each other. [English] Senator Tkachuk: In your negotiations, do you deal with a Mohawk council through the chief or do you deal with the Mohawk Development Corporation, or both? Can you give me an idea of what areas with which you would deal for each of them? [Translation] Mr. Patry: As of the time the bill is passed? [English] Senator Tkachuk: Tell us what you think will happen when the bill becomes law and perhaps compare that to what you do now. [Translation] Mr. Patry: I will leave it up to the Grand Chief and his band council to decide who will negotiate with the municipality in order to harmonize by-laws. I do not have any problems with that. [English] Senator Tkachuk: I understand that the Mohawk Development Corporation owns the lands that were purchased and transferred by the federal government. There must be some legal entity to sign a contract or an agreement for fire protection or water services. How is that done now? Obviously those services exist already. Who is the legal entity now and who will it be after this bill? Or will they decide that? [Translation] Mr. Patry: With respect to tax payments for the services, we deal with the federal government. As soon as Bill S-24 is passed, we will work with the band council. That is the difference. We take the federal government out of the picture and the two councils have to sit down together to resolve any disputes and work out payment for the services that might be offered to Kanesatake. The reverse may happen as well. It is quite likely that some day, they will be the one offering us services that we will be pleased to have and to pay for. [English] Senator Tkachuk: All that will mean is that you will be dealing with a different person. You are saying that, currently, you get the money directly from the federal government? Mr. Patry: Yes. The Chairman: Thank you very much. Before we conclude, just to let you know, all the points in the letter from your lawyer will be raised with DIAND and they will be considered. I would like to thank you all very much for travelling here. This is a very important occasion and a very important bill. Your communities will work together in harmony. Whether we like it or not, we must work together. Hopefully, this is a beginning. If the senators would like to stay, we will go in camera after a short break. Senator Fraser: Can we hear from the officials, on the record, on the point about translation, about counsel's suggestion that there is a discrepancy between the English and French versions? I do not think the counsel is right, but I would like someone who is a lawyer to say that on the record. The Chairman: Are all honourable senators in agreement with that? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: We can invite the department to come forward regarding the interpretation of that letter from the lawyer. Ms Sylvia Cox-Duquette, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice: There have been several questions about differences between the English and French versions. Mr. Patry has brought up some points in that regard. I want to preface my remarks with two general comments about how we draft. You are probably all aware of the bi-jural policy. The drafting of legislation in English and French for federal statutes is not a matter of translating word for word from one language to another. Both French and English versions are drafted simultaneously and in such a way that they meet the conventions of each particular language and also are neutral in terms of common law and civil law. The idea behind both sides of the draft is to get the same meaning. I will discuss why it is the same meaning for the two particular clauses. There will be differences both in the form that it takes and in some of the wording. The idea is to use the language that best represents the meaning of the clause. People are used to the old days when there was the notion of translating from one language to the other. Often it was translating from the English version into the French. Often it was poorly done. Oddly enough, just for your information, the chief drafter on this particular bill was the Francophone drafter and the English and French drafts were done together. For example, on subclause 3(3) you will note the very different structure in English and French because it is not the convention in French drafting to draft in the same way. You will see structural and wording differences throughout the bill and, in fact, it is the same with regard to every federal statute that comes before you. With regard to the particular points made, I will start with subclause 11(2). In the English you will see that it reads: For the purposes of subsection (1), environmental protec tion does not include environmental assessment. Then in the French, you see it said a little bit differently. [Translation] Ne sont pas visées au paragraphe (1) les dispositions des lois fédérales relatives à l'évaluation environnementale. [English] In the French text, all that has been is to carry forward from the previous section the idea of federal laws. This clause is attempting to avoid any confusion with regard to environmental protection. As you see, this bill only deals with environmental protection. With regard to environmental assessment, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which has a complete code, continues to apply. Under the Kanesatake land code there is a process that is consistent with that for carrying out environmental assessments. This bill deals only with environmental protection. For clarity, we had to exclude environmental assessments because we wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding that it was covering everything environmental. It attains that goal in both languages. Deborah Corber, Senior Federal Negotiator, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: If I can add to that, I had the privilege of watching this drafting process and it was a privilege. There were many lively debates about these different approaches. As the federal negotiator of the agreement, there were times when I argued with the drafters and said, "Well, the agreement has three paragraphs. This clause in the bill that reflects the agreement must have three in the English and three in the French." At the end of day, I was persuaded that the meaning is entirely the same. It was quite something to witness the two drafters working at this together. It was a privilege. The Chairman: Would you like to comment on the suggestion that the bill have a map of the land base? Ms Corber: This may, at some point, best be a question for the Mohawks of Kanesatake. From the federal side, I can say that we are clear as to what the lands are. It may not be apparent on the face of it what are Kanesatake Indian Lands No. 16, but by reference to information elsewhere it is possible to determine what those lands are. Every one of the items listed in the annex can be determined. It may well be the case that it would be simpler for people to be able to pick up a nice tidy little map. It is not a tidy situation. The most important thing is that people be able to determine which lands are targeted by this and in every case that is possible to do. Senator Fraser: I would assume that at least within the village of Oka, all the lots have been subject to surveying in the way that lots within municipalities are surveyed. That must be on the record somewhere; is that correct? Ms Corber: I am not certain whether these lands have been surveyed. The municipal officials may know better and other DIAND officials may know better. Senator Tkachuk: Who holds title? Ms Corber: The Crown holds title. Senator Tkachuk: Does the Mohawk Development Corporation hold any title?Is it just federal lands? Ms Corber: That is correct. Senator Tkachuk: Why can we not have a map then? Ms Corber: There are various maps. There is just not one composite map. For example, on the 57 lots of the village, one of ways they are able to be identified is by reference to a map that comes along with Schedule "B" to the agreement which has those sectors put together to identify where the 57 lots were in the village for the purposes of linking them to the uses and standards that are permissible in Schedule B. You can see them in that configuration. There are various maps at the back of the binder that will show where the territory is, but the specific element was not adequate to just give the people the maps at the back of this binder. We wanted to itemize the various pieces of that territory, one of them being Kanesatake Indian Lands No. 16. There is a road that is referenced there. There are the 177 properties that are covered by the property management agreement. The only reason that is not put in any more detail is because there are 75 pages of legal descriptions of those 177 properties. We did not think anyone would appreciate having 75 pages appended to the bill. It is a bit of shorthand, if you will, but from that shorthand there is a place to go to determine where all the pieces of land lie. The Chairman: The letter raises two points. First, the bill should have a map of the land base to specify where Mohawk laws and where Oka bylaws will apply. That is one of the questions. That is the map that they want. They want to identify where Mohawk laws and where Oka bylaws would apply. Senator Tkachuk: It makes sense that people would want an easier way to look at it rather than going through some 160-page document. The taxpayers of Canada did pay for that land, I think. The Chairman: As they should. Senator Tkachuk: Well, they did. The Chairman: I know that. I am just saying they should have. Senator Tkachuk: I am just saying they did. The Chairman: That is the question as far as the map is concerned. It is not just a matter of a map, it is a question of where the different laws would apply. Ms Corber: Madam Chair, they are linked. Having a map makes it easier to ascertain where the laws would apply. To the best of my knowledge, there is not in existence one map that has all of the properties together as the Kanesatake interim land base at this time. We thought it best to identify them in this fashion. I take the point in the letter that it would have been easier had there been one map, but to my knowledge there is not one in existence at this time. Senator Tkachuk: Can we not make an amendment to have such a map attached within a certain time period, six months or one year? Ms Cox-Duquette:In terms of how the bill was done, one issue that came up with the legislative drafters when we determined what kind of things we want as schedules was, as you may have noticed in this bill, that lands may be added. The question was are we going to put in a map and then, in addition to making amendments, amend maps on a regular basis so that we are creating out of the federal statute, in a sense, a land registry system with the same complications each time it arises. In terms of accessibility, for the bill and for the sake of neatness, it was felt that a map was not the most appropriate way to present the bill. The Chairman: I believe it would be up to the municipality and the band council to determine where the laws applied. That has been my thinking. Otherwise, it gets bogged down in acts and laws and things like that. That is my opinion. Ms Cox-Duquette: Although it is not visible, it is legally ascertainable. I think that is what Ms Corber was trying to say. It is not a mystery. The Chairman: Are there any other concerns from the committee regarding the bill? Senator Tkachuk: Beyond the normal concerns raised by the previous witness, which we always seem to deal with, the question of the division of property and the rest of those issues, I suppose I really do not have any questions. The Chairman: Is it necessary that we go clause by clause? Senator Fraser: We must do that, must we not? The Chairman: No, if everyone is satisfied, we can move the bill in its entirety. Senator Tkachuk: On division. The Chairman: On division. Senator Gill: I move that the bill be carried, on division. The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that I report Bill S-24 to the Senate without amendment? Hon. Senators: Agreed. Senator Tkachuk: This is a matter of principle, you understand? The Chairman: I understand. Senator Tkachuk: My vote has nothing to do with the Mohawks, but rather that this is a Liberal bill. I want the chief to understand that there is not a Liberal bill yet that I have voted for and there never will be. Especially with the majority they have now. That is my own way to send a message. The Chairman: He is from Saskatchewan also, so we forgive him. I will report the bill tomorrow. I thank each and every one of you. This is an exciting time. To the mayor and the chief, I have been involved with land claims for almost 40 years and this is the first time I have ever seen this type of agreement as far as land is concerned. This bill does not fall under the Indian Act. It is parallel to class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. That is significant. You are making excellent groundwork for many other land claims, I am sure. The committee adjourned.