Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 29th, 2017

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict, Grand Chief, Mohawk Government, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne]

Good morning. Greetings. I am Abram Benedict, Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne.

I want to acknowledge the territory that we are on here today, a territory in which the Algonquins and the Haudenosaunee have historically met.

The Akwesasne territory I come from is a geographically unique place that is about three hours east of here. The territory straddles the international boundary between United States, upstate New York and Canada while straddling the Ontario and Quebec provincial line, the political borders which were all well after the community had been contemporarily occupied and the borders were drawn without community consent or consultation.

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne is recognized under the Canadian portion of Akwesasne as the elected system, and it is comprised of 12 district chiefs and a grand chief, which position I hold now.

The Mohawk community of Akwesasne is a community of over 20,000 community members with ancestors who have inhabited the St. Lawrence Valley for centuries. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne currently has 12,500 registered members. The community consists of 3,200 hectares of land as well as 60 kilometres of waterways that connect many water tributaries to what is known at the St. Lawrence River, which we are also on today.

There are a few claims we have active within Akwesasne, one of which is Canada's second largest thus far claim amount being offered, which is the Tsikaristisere-Dundee land claim. Currently the Government of Canada has offered $239 million for its breach of fiduciary responsibility for the misuse of 18,200 acres of land in the Dundee, Quebec, portion of Akwesasne.

We have a Seaway land claim, which is from the construction of a hydro dam in the international shipping channel known as the Seaway shipping channel, which was constructed in the 1950s. At that time, when the two governments of Canada and the United States viewed this project as a great success and an economic engine to join two countries, the reality was that in our community hundreds of metric tons of our land were being taken away and the lands were being expropriated and small amounts of compensation were offered to each individual member of the community. We have a claim against Canada for this.

The North Shore land claim, which is another claim that we are continuing to research, was recently submitted but unfortunately rejected under the current policies that exist. The Baxter and Barnhart claim is a very unique claim because it is a claim for an island that was in our traditional territory but then was later on traded with the United States. Now the Government of Canada maintains it is outside of their jurisdiction. And there's the New York state claim in which we are partners, we are applicants on it on as well as the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe and the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs. There are numerous other claims that our community has still in the research phase.

To assist the work of the Mohawk Council we have created an office called the Aboriginal Rights and Research Office, ARRO. The ARRO staff had been working on land claims during the 1980s with other departments and it was more formally established as a dedicated research office in 1989. Our community has been funding it, as has in part the government, based on submissions and approvals of resources, but for the most part we have funded it entirely on our own. The current staff includes a manager, four researchers and one records administrator.

With the dedicated assistance of our Aboriginal Rights and Research Office, the Mohawk Council and the community of Akwesasne have settled an Ontario Power Generation claim in 2008. As well, we have settled the Easterbrook claim in 2012.

Our core approach is a nation-to-nation approach where indigenous first nations communities have a level playing field when dealing with the Government of Canada in regard to being able to equitably resolve outstanding historical land claims. The tools required would increase the funding resources to create a joint process in policy implementation as well as development, independent services, and equal access to resolution services. This is something that was available in the past, where you were able to acquire the services of an outside facilitator during discussions. Now that has been brought back in and the dispute mechanism that's available is actually another department.

On reframing the approach to restoring lands, the return of lands, I know that a number of you have remarked that as you've travelled across the country this week other communities have said that it's not always about the money, it's about the return of land.

I'm joined here today by Mr. Phillipp White-Cree, who will provide more information about the unique aspects of Akwesasne, as well as our land claim issues. He is the acting manager from our department of aboriginal rights and research.

[Phillip White-Cree, Acting Manager, Aboriginal Rights and Research Office, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne]

[Witness speaks in Mohawk]

Greetings and peace to everybody here.

I'm Phillipp White-Cree. Within the last few weeks I've been assigned to become the acting manager for the Aboriginal Rights and Research Office. It's a task I don't take lightly, because there's already been three generations' worth of work within this office, and now I'm number four at bat. It's my commitment to work with the elders and mentors of our past as I continue to move our office forward.

The ultimate goal of our office was always to reassert that the lands were unjustly and unilaterally removed from Akwesasne's jurisdiction, and the ultimate goal of the community is to have the piece that is missing from our territories returned and made whole. The moneys benefit us, but it's really the land that has always been the primary and ultimate goal. These goals really go with Akwesasne's history, in which we had vast amounts of land that we were able to lease out in different areas, but because of the mismanagement of these leases...which the government and also the settlers have taken on and are saying that we no longer have jurisdiction over those lands.

As Abram has mentioned, we're really looking for the funding resources to be increased prior to the 2009 steady decrease of those funding resources. That has been an ongoing issue with my office. We have constraints of office space. We have constraints of office materials. Our archive room needs to be relocated because of the way our claims are having to grow, yet the financial resources are not available for us to be able to do that due diligence with our research.

We are asking for the joint processes and policy implementation and development to be done. The specific land claims process, from submission to evaluation to negotiations, to even settlement, needs to be re-evaluated jointly between Canada and first nations, because there are issues, bare minimums, criteria of judgment we do not understand, and we get frustrated when we simply get told, “We're only accepting x, y, and z. Here's the amount, take it or leave it.” These processes and these mandates are infuriating to our office, as well as infuriating to our community members when we try to explain that these are Canada's rules and they are not changing them. This is where we would like to stress that, as first nations, we would love to have a joint dialogue and joint discussion about the processes involved with this criteria of bare minimums.

On independent services and equal access to resolution services, the tribunal is considered an independent legal body, but for many it's considered a last resort because of the funding cap. There's no remediation of lands, there's no options for those remedies. The tribunal's rulings are under jurisdictional review. Again, it's Canada trying to say, “Oh well, that's not the final say”, even though first nations were always told that the tribunal's would be the final say on certain claims.

What we're asking is that there be alternative approaches, such as understanding the injury of culture, the loss of resources, the loss of connection that the community had with these lands. The lands never went anywhere, it's just that another body is claiming to have sole jurisdiction. For our community members this has been an ongoing battle in which we had court cases, including our fishing rights, tied to it because they said, “Oh, you don't have jurisdiction over those lands”. We've proven at the Supreme Court that our fishing rights, as long as we continue to use them, are there.

It's really to reframe the approach to the resolution of land claims, with the returning of land seen as the ultimate goal, and working with our neighbours and current occupiers of these lands and waterways.

The additions to reserve process again continues to be cumbersome. There are third party interests, stalled processes, and delays in the entire process.

Cultural restoration. Injury to culture should be taken into account.

From our perspective, Canada's mindset is the fear of liability, avoiding acknowledging mistakes. It almost seems as if they're wanting to eliminate or disrupt the land claims by limiting resources to first nations, avoiding moving files in the hope first nations grow tired of it and leaving it for the next political government to take up, avoiding paying damages and settlements as final negotiations end up becoming “take it or leave it”, and leaving first nations with no other option than to have that actual dialogue and those discussions in good faith.

So in reality, we're asking for these joint mandates and implementations, and we're seeking a human solution to this human-created inequality when it comes to the land claims process.

[Witness speaks in Mohawk]

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

All right, our third presenter is Chief Stacey Laforme.

[Chief Stacey Laforme, Chief, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation]

[Witness speaks in Ojibwe]

It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for the invitation. You're going to see me misplace my glasses a few times, so just be kind and point them out for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I can definitely relate.

[Chief Stacey Laforme]

I'm going to keep things as brief as I can, and not try to go over everything that has been gone over. They're all good points, but you don't need to hear me say them again.

The Mississaugas of Credit are about 2,600 people. We have treaty lands of basically from out near the Rouge, down near London, out past Guelph, and to Niagara Falls. As a matter of fact, the only assertion of title that Canada can make is through a treaty with the Mississaugas, within our treaty territories. One of the things we've done recently is we've realigned with the other Mississauga communities. There are six of us, and within that there are about 10,000 people. Historically, there were many more thousands of Mississauga people than that.

I must say that this process has been very telling for me, because I came into this thinking that when we talk about the specific claims and negotiations, it must stop being adversarial and it must become reconciliatory.

One of the things I want to touch on is how the claims are funded. There must be a better way to do it than simply having a cap and an upper limit on certain processes that we need to engage in. I've heard that other governments have used grant funding in the process, so maybe that's a model.

The separation of indigenous communities from the claims assessment process means it is obviously not a partnership. Basically, there's no dialogue during Canada's assessment stage. I know people have touched on this already, but for two to five years, or however long it takes—I know it's set now at three—it simply disappears and we don't hear anymore about it until, “Hello, here's our decision.” That's problematic, and it creates an adversarial relationship as opposed to a relationship where we could work together.

I must touch on this one. The Mississaugas have successfully settled three land claims, although I don't know how successful the Toronto Purchase one was in my eyes. We have many more outstanding. We have title claim to areas in the Rouge. We have made a title claim to all the waters of our traditional treaty lands. That's a very good read, by the way. If you get an opportunity to read that, it's very interesting, and a nice way to pass an evening.

The water claims were going along; we were working with a proponent who was hoping to put electrical lines underneath the lake-bed, which is our claim territory, where we say we have ownership. Things were going along okay, and then NRCan made a ruling without consulting us and discussing the impacts on our treaty assertions—our title assertions, actually, not our treaty assertions. Once that happened, we had no choice but to file for a judicial review, and that's where we are right now with the federal government.

That's one of the issues I believe was mentioned earlier. I know your government has many hands, but it doesn't seem like some of your hands know what the other ones are doing, so sometimes decisions are made at a certain level when in fact they're still working on a process.

Right now we've engaged the government in a round table, if you will, talking about how to ensure that this doesn't happen in the future, among other things, and how we can protect the assertions of title claims—maybe even treaty claims—from a perspective of what the federal government can do, such as put processes in place. I'm hoping that if it's a successful project, other first nations can build on it if they so choose.

The table was also to talk about governance, getting out of the Indian Act and that type of thing. It's very interesting, and we have some hope that it may lead to good work in the future.

I talked about the judicial review. Now we've contacted Ontario, because Ontario would have to do an easement, and we told Ontario that given there's a judicial review on this, we don't expect you to proceed with an easement.

Then we scrambled around and made sure that we had our workers on the ground contact their workers on the ground to say, here's where we're at, don't do this. It was just to make sure that something didn't happen without everybody knowing what's going on.

I'm not going to touch too much on this, because it's been touched on over and over, about the extinguishing of rights. It cannot be the way that we proceed under this type of process.

With regard to our water beds, our lake-beds, Canada will require that our title be extinguished as part of reaching a settlement of some type. This fosters the very same thinking of 200 years ago, when my people said, “This is about sharing the land. This is about using it. This is about safeguarding.” Your people said, “No, this is about owning. It is about ours and acquiring.” I think that kind of philosophy needs to be looked at again.

I'm not going to go into all the points that I have here, but I am going to talk a little more about some processes.

Within the specific claims process, it's so adversarial that there is no way to resolve claims. I mean, I've sat at the table with people who genuinely had affection for each other, but it is still an adversarial process. Meetings take place in the cities and not very often in the communities. There is strict adherence: you cannot inform your membership, you can't keep them updated. That really causes problems with building relations internally, as well as externally.

One of the things the government should be doing is that it should be mandatory that people involved in the negotiation process understand the indigenous perspective, understand our world views. I think there should be mandatory training for these types of processes.

I also think there needs to be some type of involvement in ceremony. I'd love to see some smudging in some protocols. Maybe you don't use them, but you wouldn't believe the effect they have on people in a room when there are adversarial relationships. It's very soothing and works to calm things down.

We also talked about open dialogue, what is on the table, how broadly we are speaking, when do issues get dealt with. This is more I guess on my side of the table. If we're in negotiations and we're having issues that come between us right at the get-go, they get pushed aside and we deal with everything around them until at the end of the day, 10 years later.... What happened in our claim was that the Toronto Islands were included in the claim. From the beginning we said that there was no way that the Toronto Islands were ever going to be a part of this claim. At the end of the day, because we didn't do the work on it immediately, the government said take it or leave it, take another 10 years and go to court. We really didn't have any options, so it must be very plain as to what's on the table.

Also, now I'm going to ask something that might be a little strange, but it's my last point. Do we always need a lawyer in the room? They're vital to the process, don't get me wrong, but any one of us can say “without prejudice”. At some point in time, you're actually going to have a table that talks about reconciliation. If you're going to talk about reconciliation—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

There are a lot of lawyers pointing to each other.

[Chief Stacey Laforme]

Oh, I know that.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'm with you.

[Chief Stacey Laforme]

If you're having a discussion that's open and fluid, you don't need the lawyers to be there to protect your rights. They can come in later.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you so much.

The questioning starts off with seven-minute rounds for all representatives of each political party.

We start off with MP Gary Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for those wise words. I agree that you don't need lawyers in the room all the time. For the record, I'm here as a parliamentarian and not as a lawyer.

Chief Laforme, I want to acknowledge the work you've been doing—I know you mentioned it in passing—especially with respect to bringing the six Mississaugas together. I know you had a ceremony earlier this year where we were able to witness a historic moment where everyone came together as a nation.

I want to get a bit more sense from you as to how that process is evolving and what the next steps are. I know you can't speak for everyone, but I'd like at least your perspective in terms of how this nation is developing and what kind of support you're getting from the federal government in that process—briefly.

[Chief Stacey Laforme]

The Mississauga Nations obviously signed an accord, and you were there. We have raised our flag in the communities. We are having interactions at the government relationship table with our chiefs. We're hoping to have community functions and get back together.

The reason we're doing the Mississauga Nation and beyond that is that if the Mississauga Nation succeeds—and it will—the other nations, like the Chippewa, Odawa, Ojibwa, and Potawatomi, can come together as nations under the Anishinabe people because that's who they are. They are separate nations under the Anishinabe people. As long as we see ourselves separate and divided in the north and the south—this PTO, that PTO—we'll never be able to help each other. We can't see ourselves helping somebody when they're our competition because we all scramble and fight for the same thing. So, the nation-to-nation for all of us is the best path forward.

I don't exclude my other indigenous brothers and sisters who are in that evolvement, but that's their role to find. I can only only deal with the Anishinabe, who we are.

The Government of Canada has provided some funding and is interested in having discussions around governance with the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, discussions about what that all means and how that could get to the ideology of nation-to-nation and the movement out of the Indian Act. There has been some funding in round tables with regard to that.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Chief Benedict, I know you outlined a number of claims that are still pending and ongoing. It seems to me that these issues.... You indicated that more research is being undertaken with respect to new claims.

Have you explored undertaking a comprehensive claim? If so, what kind of rationale did you have for why you didn't go that route and are continuing on towards specific claims?

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict]

I would say that as we continued to research them, we were obviously looking at some of the options and in which avenue we should best take them. I think that as the government evolves its policy development and positioning, in which it'll address whether it'll be a comprehensive or specific, we will see perhaps which may be the best option at this point.

We've negotiated the Dundee land claim, the Tsikaristisere land claim over about the last eight or nine years. There have been ongoing negotiations, and we've seen this shift in where claims are going. I think that if it continues to go down that route, it's going to be a bit more friendly, and it's going to be easier to get some of these claims resolved.

At the end of the day, we want to bring them to resolution because it's part of reconciliation as well. There is a lot of anxiety in our communities—and I think I speak for all of the presenters—regarding these ongoing claims that are never resolved. We can't really put these matters to closure until we've come to something that both the Government of Canada and our communities can agree upon.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Chief Laforme, your territory is effectively a large part of the Toronto area, so 416 and a large chunk of 905. It's probably, from strictly a dollar perspective, one of the most valuable areas in the country, if not around the world.

What kind of support and what kind of engagement do you have with the different levels of government at the table in order to ensure as a people that recognition is there within the about seven million people who live in that territory?

[Chief Stacey Laforme]

I will just start by saying that I believe that with treaties come responsibility on both sides of the table, and if people are not actively aware of what those treaties are about, then nobody can fulfill those roles.

I believe that, certainly, on my side of the table we have responsibilities to the lands and waters, but I also believe that we have a responsibility to everybody who lives on our treaty territory. We've been working very hard to provide a wide education and awareness, to build relations with all levels of government and with all the different nations within our treaty lands. Also, we have signed various MOUs with unions and with universities, quite frankly, because I believe in the opportunity to work together to make a progressive future.

When we do things, it's not just about what we can do for the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. It's also about how we can bring recognition and value to the city of Toronto or one of the other cities, and how we can employ some of the indigenous people through those processes because of the relationships we have with the city, with the waterfront, with other things. It's not just about us; it's about meeting the responsibility that is outlined under the treaty relationship.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you. That concludes your seven minutes.

We'll go to MP Cathy McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you to all the witnesses. As we're into career confessions, maybe we need more former nurses around the table.

There are a few things I picked up on, and maybe I had made assumptions that might not be accurate. Number one of my assumptions was that there would have certainly been some orientation, training, and the appropriate use of ceremony with the negotiators. Maybe you could speak to that. I was surprised to think that you would have a negotiator who would be having some very important discussions without having that kind of basic background.

Was my assumption wrong?

[Chief Stacey Laforme]

If you're asking me, in the 10 years that I sat at the negotiating table, it never happened once. There was no ceremony, no process. It was very much, you sit on that side of the table, we sit on this side of the table. We get mad, we get up and we leave. You get mad, you go to the caucus. It's very much that type of relationship, with no process brought into it at all.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

To your knowledge, was there no opportunity for the negotiators to become very familiar with culture and training?

[Chief Stacey Laforme]

Quite frankly, I didn't sense there was any real interest at that time in knowing anything about it. Really, the negotiations with us are about how strong our assertion is, what the risk to the crown is, what it would cost if we lost, how much we can afford to pay. That's the type of mentality that we sat across from.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Grand Chief Benedict, any comments there?

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict]

I'm not sure there was a negotiation school that existed. Many of these claims have been going on for a really long time. I will tell you that in our community, regardless of the attitude on the other side of the table, we take the initiative upon ourselves to ensure that each individual is aware of the customs and traditions of our people, as well as respectful of the ceremonies.

One extremely unique thing about our community is that our community as a whole is in two countries, two provinces, and one state. When you bring them, you have to make sure they have a passport first to get to, probably, two-thirds of our community. Then, you also have to understand why our community is where it is and the impacts there, understand the people who are sitting across the table from you.

In our experience with some of the claims that are ongoing or being ratified, everybody comes to the table at first with their chests puffed up and everything, and everyone thinks they're going to win their side. I think it's all in the approach. We've had relative success in it, but to expect the individual to come forward with a real understanding, probably not. The government's not there yet. I think that with the TRC and equipping civil servants to have a better understanding, it's there but it's going to take some time.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Certainly your issues are very unique, as you indicated with the cross-border.... We haven't had anyone talk in terms of the specific issues around water. Can you talk a little more? What we have heard is a process that's generic across the country, and sometimes it doesn't meet the unique circumstances of different types of cases.