Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #72 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was land.
Evidence of meeting #72 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was land.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
These MPs are getting quite tricky, aren't they?
I want to thank you sincerely for coming out early. It's technical in nature. It's important as we look forward to moving forward on reconciliation.
Thank you for participating. Meegwetch.
We'll take a short break and reconvene at 9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Let's officially get started with this panel. Since there are three submissions, we'll try to be as efficient as possible. I remind you to look at me because I'm using hand signals to indicate when we have to wrap up. I'll indicate how many minutes you have left to present, so you have an idea of when I have to intervene. We'll go into a question-and-answer period after that.
Welcome. We are studying comprehensive and specific land claims. Each presenter will be given 10 minutes. I ask the delegations to decide who will go first. Please proceed.
Chief R. Donald Maracle Chief, Band No. 38, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte
[Witness speaks in Mohawk]
I'm Chief Donald Maracle of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. I've been the elected chief for 24 years in our community.
The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte are part of the Mohawk nation within the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. We are one of the Six Nations communities politically associated with the Iroquois Caucus and a member first nation of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians.
The Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory is located along the shores of the beautiful Bay of Quinte. We are approximately 20 kilometres east of this venue today. Our current membership as of August 31 is 9,775 members. We have an on-reserve population of 2,175. This does not take into account the number of non-registered people living in our community who are part of our members' families.
Our community has the third-largest membership in indigenous communities in Ontario and the 10th largest in Canada. We are currently in negotiations with Canada on the Culbertson Tract claim of 923.4 acres. This claim has attempted to be negotiated in the past. We've taken Canada to court for a judicial review in regard to not negotiating in good faith and being open to negotiating under all aspects of the specific claims policy.
We are recently back at the table with hopes of settling a portion of this claim, 300 acres. We are now seeing some creative activity in the thinking at the table, but there are still constraints.
In the past we've had to request a judicial review in order to have Canada not only negotiate in good faith, but also follow all aspects of their policy. The position of only monetary compensation and not land is an infringement on our rights. Under the Simcoe Deed, Treaty No. 3½, our treaty states:
And that in case any Person or Persons other than the said Chiefs Warriors Women and People of the said Six Nations shall under pretence of any such Title as aforesaid presume to possess or occupy the said District or Territory or any part or parcel thereof that it shall and may be lawful for Us our Heirs and Successors at any time hereafter to enter upon [those] Lands so occupied and possessed by any other Person or Persons other than the said Chiefs Warriors Women and People of the said Six Nations and them the said Intruders thereof and therefrom wholly to dispossess and evict and to resume the same to Ourselves Our Heirs and Successors.
This means that the crown or its heirs has the fiduciary duty to dispossess trespassers from our land. These treaty provisions embody the special relationship between the Mohawks and the British crown as military allies that cannot be forgotten by subsequent layers of legislation and policy. Today I brought the photograph of one of those historic allies, Mohawk military captain Joseph Brant and the Mohawk captain Deseronto.
The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte's experience with this specific claims policy is that Canada's negotiators tend to turn a blind eye to the land compensation component of the policy. Canada's negotiators instead follow an unwritten policy of monetary compensation only, and then advise the first nations that they can use the settlement monies to purchase the lands on a “willing seller, willing buyer” basis. Rather than recognize the fiduciary role to the treaty provisions of protecting the land, the crown has instead followed a course toward extinguishment of aboriginal title. The establishment of a tribunal to address monetary compensation only further ignores the treaty relationship that exists between our community and Canada. The only mandate we have from our community in negotiating one is to have the land returned to our growing community and to seek compensation for loss of use.
On the monetary compensation, the $150-million limit, if negotiations fail, we end up at the tribunal. We would have no choice but to accept monetary compensation. Monetary compensation is set at a maximum of $150 million at the tribunal level. This is a combination of the current market value compensation and loss-of-use compensation. No amount of money can entice us to surrender our land. Money does not address the crown's responsibilities to our treaty, nor will it address the growing need for restoration of land for the generations to come.
Given the fact that our community has less than 20% of its treaty land left, with approximately 75 acres under potential claim, it is doubtful that our claims will fit into the process, especially when taking into account third party developments on the claim areas.
The requirement that first nations surrender all interests in or rights to the land resources upon the settlement of a claim is preposterous. This clause is also an infringement on our treaty rights under the specific Simcoe Deed, Treaty No 3½, which outlines how the lands are to be disposed of. It reads:
Provided always nevertheless that if at any time the said Chiefs Warriors Women and People of the said Six Nations should be inclined to dispose of and Surrender their Use and Interest in the said District or Territory, the same shall be purchased only for Us in Our Name at some Public Meeting or Assembly of the Chiefs Warriors and People of the said Six Nations to be held for that purpose by the Governor Lieutenant Governor or Person Administering Our Government in Our Province of Upper Canada.
This is very similar to the provisions of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which set the foundation for recognizing and addressing aboriginal title and interest in lands. This is part of Canada's Constitution.
Why should our people be expected to extinguish our title interests in lands so third parties can remain on the land? We did not surrender it in the first place. Perhaps Canada deems it easier to dispossess our people rather than third parties that have been given flawed title to our lands by the crown. An original injustice cannot be corrected by creating another injustice. Why does Canada fail to recognize first nation title interests in the land?
Through government-fuelled propaganda, the media often portrays first nation claims as flimsy alleged claims rather than legitimate outstanding legal grievances based on aboriginal treaty breaches by the crown. It would go a long way if Canada were to stand up and say, “We are negotiating because this particular first nation has outstanding title interests that can no longer be ignored.”
In order to have reconciliation, the crown must admit the mistakes of its predecessors and take responsibility for past mistakes. Extinguishing aboriginal title and treaty rights through federal policies does not set a proper tone for reconciliation.
Canada's position has been that it has no land to offer for the settlement of claims, yet Canada is able to purchase land when needed under other circumstances. Canada has powers of expropriation, as well as the ability to purchase land; however, Canada, through the Department of Justice and the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, chooses not to utilize these powers and abilities to settle first nation claims.
Canada's position is that first nations can use the compensation money to purchase the lands on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. The purchased land can then be applied for as an addition to reserve. It is unreasonable to expect our community to buy its own treaty lands back when the treaty outlines that it's Canada's responsibility to correct the breach by removing the third parties from our land.
Under the addition-to-reserve policy, Indian and Northern Affairs bureaucrats decide whether the land purchased by a first nation can be added to the reserve or not. This policy deals with Indian land as a mere policy issue, rather than recognizing the constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples.
Our community has many claims that will be submitted to the federal government and Ontario for resolution in the near future; however, we cannot submit any of our claims into a process that continues to ignore aboriginal and treaty rights or requires our extinguishment of title.
I must reiterate that our mandate is to negotiate for the return and control of the lands and to discuss loss-of-use compensation for the time that we have been without the use of the land and the benefit of the land. We do not have a mandate to discuss extinguishment of our rights to lands that are needed now and will be needed in generations to come.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you. We appreciate that.
We will go to our next presenter. We are hearing from the Missanabie Cree Nation, with Ryan Lake.
Ryan, go ahead for 10 minutes.
Ryan Lake Legal Counsel, Missanabie Cree First Nation
I guess I should give a little background first. Obviously, Chief Gauthier sends his regrets. Being the leader of a first nations government, he has many demands placed upon him every day, in the same way that I'm sure you do, honourable members.
The Missanabie Cree First Nation is party to Treaty No. 9, but it never received any reserve land despite repeated requests following the treaty commission's visit to what is today known as Missanabie station, sort of in the hinterland of northern Ontario, north of Wawa. As a landless band, Canada has admitted in litigation at the Superior Court that it has an outstanding obligation to perform the sacred Treaty No. 9 promise to provide the Missanabie Cree First Nation with a reserve. This failure to fulfill its constitutional and treaty obligations in a reasonable and timely manner constitutes a breach of treaty fiduciary duty and the honour of the crown, which of course is always at stake when dealing with first nations.
In addition to its entitlement to reserve land, the Missanabie Cree also seek equitable compensation for the extensive damage and irreparable harm caused by the mass displacement of the Missanabie Cree from their traditional territory, and countless social impacts suffered by generations of Missanabie Cree for more than 110 years. Of course, having said that Canada acknowledges this lawful obligation, it probably perplexes many people why this is still a claim caught up in the system, but I will get to that in a moment. I'm just going to continue with another little summary here about Treaty No. 9 and Missanabie.
Prior to Treaty No. 9, treaties were negotiated and entered into solely between the federal government and the Indians. However, in 1894, Ontario and Canada signed a formal agreement, ratified by imperial statute, which stated:
that any future treaties with the Indians in respect of territory in Ontario to which they have not before the passing of the said statutes surrendered their claim aforesaid, shall be deemed to require the concurrence of the government of Ontario
In effect, when the treaty commissioners were out making Treaty No. 9, Ontario was a party to that treaty and effectively, through the terms of that treaty, carried significant veto power over the allocation of reserve lands to first nations. Of course, that factors substantially into the Missanabie Cree's claim, because much of the reason, as far as we can tell, why they never received their reserve was due to the economic interests of the Province of Ontario for its benefit alone and to the exclusion of the Missanabie Cree.
A final point on that is that Treaty No. 9 was radically different in that it was drafted by lawyers for the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario without the involvement, input, or consent of the Indian bands whose aboriginal title was to be extinguished by its terms. The treaty was engrossed on parchment paper by the crown—not different than many of the cellphone agreements you and I enter into on a regular basis—and the treaty commissioner set out in 1905 and 1906 and signed adhesions with some, obviously not all, of the bands of Indians occupying the vast territory covered by Treaty No. 9, an area comprising 90,000 square miles of land rich in gold, minerals, timber, and other natural resources.
It's often said that with the first signature to that treaty, to that parchment paper, first nations had fulfilled their aspect of the treaty obligation, which was in effect the cession of aboriginal title to all of that land. Of course, in exchange for that are the solemn and sacred promises that are obviously enshrined in Treaty No. 9, many, if not all of which, have either been only partially fulfilled or not fulfilled at all.
Now popping over in my presentation, more substantively, I have some observations I will briefly discuss with this committee in relation to the specific claims process. My commentary and recommendations would have substantial influence over the resolution of the Missanabie Cree's treaty land entitlement claim. That said, I must add that because this claim, which I am counsel to, is in advanced stages of a negotiated resolution, I'll not be directly commenting on that claim. I would also like to take a moment and provide the committee with two documents, which I have provided to my friend over there already, which underpin much of what I will briefly discuss this morning. I've been told I should also pass on my notes. My notes are somewhat useful and, hopefully, I'll clean them up before I send them to you.
The first document was prepared by my principal, Ron Maurice, and it's titled “Recent Developments in the Law of Equitable Compensation”. This material describes the recent decision of the Specific Claims Tribunal respecting 13 first nations specific claims arising from the crown's non-payment of treaty annuities in the aftermath of the Riel Rebellion.
This decision has dramatic ramifications for the crown's risk assessment, and the global value of specific claims making their way through the specific claims process.
That's basically a case summary, a very important one, detailing what the tribunal has found in terms of equitable compensation and what it means. For all practical purposes, basically it's a specialized tribunal that has recognized that the basic principles of equitable compensation that apply in the context of common law writ large outside of the specific claims process do apply to first nations, and that indeed the result of that is a significant impact to the global value of these historical losses when they're compounded through time.
The second document was prepared by me, and it's titled “Exploring Access to Justice through Canada's Specific Claims Process”. This paper reviews features of the specific claims process that have emerged over the last 40-plus years; features of dispute resolution that have been employed to reconcile the relationships between first nations and Canada arising from centuries-old specific claims; a detailed analysis and commentary on the dispute resolution process as it is today; and a commentary on whether the current iteration is capable of addressing the desired outcome.
Then there's some analysis of the stats and the outcomes that are present in the process. Most of that is drive-by audits from your government in the last year, and submissions to the five-year review of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, which was conducted by the chair of that tribunal, Justice Slade.
I will start there, the desired outcome. Central to the resolution of specific claims is the promotion of reconciliation between first nations, the crown, and non-indigenous populations in Canada. Chief Justice Dickson observed that the relationship between the crown and first nations is trust-like rather than adversarial. This unique relationship informs the challenges and distinctive nature of the specific claims process.
The first important but simple observation that I'll touch on briefly today—and I heard some people talking about it over breakfast—pertains to the cap, the cap placed upon specific claims and more broadly the general accessibility of justice in the context of specific claims under the policy and at the tribunal.
I have two minutes left. I better pick this up.
I'm just going to read this straight through. I'll ask for an indulgence as I complete what is maybe another five minutes. I see he's refusing the indulgence.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
He's saying if you talk too fast, the interpreters won't be able to keep up.
Legal Counsel, Missanabie Cree First Nation
It's a catch-22. I can talk much faster.
Liberal
Legal Counsel, Missanabie Cree First Nation
Then I'll just say it really simply that the $150-million cap is too low, in light of developments in the case law. It means that a lot of straightforward claims involving credible acreage, surrender claims, and treaty land entitlement claims now fall outside of the benefits of the tribunal process, and $150 million isn't enough. By restricting claimants under the policy and before the tribunal to $150 million, you are in effect obstructing access to justice for countless first nations whose claims are now forced to enter the judicial process, which is filled with all sorts of challenges.
This brings me to point number two, technical defences. Until 1951, first nations weren't able to retain legal counsel. Many other restrictions have been placed on their ability to realize justice arising from historical specific claims. Today, in every single piece of litigation before the superior courts, you will find the crown defending on the basis of limitation periods, for example, which of course, in effect, extinguish aboriginal and treaty rights by virtue of their operation in statute barred claims.
My simple recommendation in this regard is to amend the legislation—either to recognize, the way you have in the tribunal process, that those limitation defences have no effect, or perhaps to create a grace period effective the date of that legislation, allowing for 10 to 15 years for all outstanding historical specific claims to be filed into the process, which would be immune to those types of defences. If you don't do that, the result would be decades-long litigation of going in and out of abeyance and negotiation, and in and out of various interlocutory or dispositive motions, which cost a lot of money.
The final comment I have is that, from our perspective, the tribunal is working. We believe that the tribunal is substantially achieving the objectives that it sought to effect. I will start briefly by looking at the case of Beardy's and Okemasis. That was the test case for the treaty annuities claims. It was submitted to the ministry in 2001, and it was rejected in 2008. Ordinarily, the only recourse would have been to the courts, where technical obstacles abound and often Eurocentric trial judges preside.
The tribunal went into operation in 2011, and this was the second claim filed with it. In 2016, we obtained a decision on damages. Since that time, we have seen a sort of centrifugal force, if you will. More and more claims are now being accepted for negotiation, as the risk assessment becomes more realistic at the Department of Justice, which we feel stems from the realization and resolution of these claims before a neutral, independent third party adjudicator.
Legal Counsel, Missanabie Cree First Nation
The last comment I will make pertains to the available tools in the tribunal process that relate to alternative dispute resolution, or ADR. The Government of Canada consistently refuses to participate in mediated resolution on the basis that they will do so only within their own process and not in a process before a neutral arbiter.
Thank you very much for your time.
Legal Counsel, Missanabie Cree First Nation
My conclusion is available to you in those papers that I provided to you.
Legal Counsel, Missanabie Cree First Nation
Of course, 15 minutes isn't very long, but hopefully it was long enough to impress a point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Chief Ava Hill, it's a pleasure to see you in person. We've talked over the phone, but I never had the opportunity to meet you in person.
Now it's your turn to present.
Chief Ava Hill Chief, Six Nations of the Grand River
Thank you. I look forward to the same generosity.
Chief, Six Nations of the Grand River
I'll go right to it. On December 15, 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated the following:
This is a time of real and positive change. We know what is needed is a total renewal of the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples. We have a plan to move towards a nation-to-nation relationship based on recognition, rights, respect, cooperation and partnership.... And we will, in partnership with Indigenous communities, the provinces, territories, and other vital partners, fully implement the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Six Nations of the Grand River could not agree more.
[Witness speaks in Mohawk]
I am the elected chief of Six Nations. My name is Ava Hill. I am a Mohawk from the Six Nations of the Grand River territory, and I'm here today representing the most largely populated first nation in Canada with some of the largest validated and unresolved land rights issues facing Canada.
I have with me Philip Monture, who is our land rights expert and has been working on this for the last 40 years or more.
We also have a package of information that we've left with the clerk, which includes our presentation along with a number of attachments that I'll be referring to.
In making this presentation I want to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of our Mohawk brothers and sisters of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, as referenced by the Prime Minister, set out the principles of reconciliation with the first principle being the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors of Canadian society.
On May 10, 2016, at the United Nations in New York City, Canada formally adopted the declaration and said we are now a full supporter of the declaration without qualification and stated that by adopting and implementing the declaration we are excited that we are breathing life into section 35 and recognizing it as the full box of rights for indigenous peoples in Canada.
I was at the UN permanent forum when Minister Carolyn Bennett made this announcement to the assembly, and I witnessed the indigenous groups from around the world giving Canada a standing ovation—such a standing ovation and vocal acknowledgement of the important announcement that the minister had to come back to finish her presentation.
Although it has taken Canada a long while to commit, it was the right thing for Canada to do.
As for some of the problems with Canada's land claims policies, I'm certain, with the mandate of this committee to study aspects of outstanding indigenous land issues and to review the federal policies regarding comprehensive and specific claims, you've heard evidence from many first nations from across Canada about what is wrong with the system. We won't reiterate much of the same, but we do feel that the report by the national claims research directors on March 9, 2015, which was entitled “In Bad Faith: Justice at Last and Canada's Failure to Resolve Specific Claims” and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada's 2016 fall report on “First Nations Specific Claims—Indigenous and Northern Affairs”, both identify most of the shortcomings and failures.
A nation-to-nation relationship based on indigenous rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership cannot and must not pretend to happen on the extinguishment of indigenous peoples' rights to their lands and resources. Canada's specific and comprehensive claims are contrary to this principle and must be replaced—period. Anything less places Canada contradicting any nation-to-nation relationship that the Prime Minister promised indigenous peoples in Canada and Canadians generally. These two claims policies undermine the unqualified support for the UN declaration that Canada has internationally committed to embrace.
In addition, the cap of $150 million for the settlement of claims makes the process useless for the Six Nations large claim. With the many failures of Canada's claims policies, the Six Nations of the Grand River foresaw no justice utilizing these policies as the remedy to the crown's mismanagement of our lands, resources, and monies. Instead, we chose litigation in 1995 over Canada's failed land claims policies.
We want to affirm our nation-to-nation relationship and find resolutions to Canada's liabilities through good faith discussion and through revenue and resource sharing agreements. Guided by the United Nations declaration principles, we can re-establish the relationship and properly fulfill the legal duty of the crown to consult and accommodate Six Nations as we continue to share our Haldimand treaty lands with our neighbours, municipalities, Ontario, Canada, and the corporate sector.
What Six Nations is going to present today is not new. We have been consistent with what the Six Nations of the Grand River presented to the Parliamentary Task Force on Indian Self-government on June 29, 1983, wherein we outlined how self-government for Six Nations can be financed using our unresolved land rights issues with the crown; with numerous presentations to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; and with many of Canada's parliamentarians since May 2011.
Six Nations Haldimand treaty lands cover an area of 950,000 acres, of which 275,000 acres are subject to treaty fulfillment, 402,000 are subject to 999-year payments intended to finance Six Nations peoples' well-being and government, and 19,000 acres were sanctioned for short-term leasing arrangements to sustain a Six Nations revenue stream.
These three examples alone would go a long way towards addressing the critical needs of the Six Nations people. However, the wisdom of the government officials of the day put a prohibition on our leasing arrangements on March 3, 1821. This is a mere snapshot of the thousands of land and financial issues between our nations requiring resolve. More details on other land issues and crown mismanagement of Six Nations funds and natural resources can be read in our “Land Rights, a Global Solution for the Six Nations of the Grand River”.
With respect to Ontario, on May 30, 2016, Premier Kathleen Wynne confirmed Ontario's commitment to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations, the TRC recommendations. She said, “I hope to demonstrate our government's commitment to changing the future by building relationships based on trust, respect and Indigenous Peoples' inherent right to self-government.” She promised to engage with indigenous partners on approaches to enhance participation in the resource sector by improving the way resource benefits are shared and to work with the federal government to address the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Recently, the Province of Ontario introduced the aboriginal price adder to its feed-in tariff program of Ontario's Green Energy and Green Economy Act, allowing indigenous first nations an opportunity to participate. With green energy initiatives being developed within the Six Nations treaty lands and guided by the UN declaration principles and the legal duty to consult and accommodate, Six Nations aggressively partnered and invested in these developments. Today, we have secured more than $1.4 million in post-secondary contributions to supplement our educational shortfalls. We will generate more than $100 million over the next 20 years for our community needs, and to date we have supported 892 megawatts of green energy in our battle against climate change and have created countless employment opportunities for Six Nations and surrounding people.
I applaud Ontario's green energy initiatives and the inclusion of indigenous governments in these developments. They have proven that revenue sharing is nothing to be afraid of but is instead a principle to be supported. For more than 40 years the Six Nations of the Grand River have not stood dormant in spite of our unresolved land issues with Canada. We have worked on consultation and accommodation agreements with our surrounding neighbours and the corporate world to help strengthen our nation and to protect our rights throughout our treaty lands, from bridges crossing the Grand River, to flood control dikes to protect the general population, to many infrastructure projects required by the surrounding municipalities.
We require environmental enhancements and mitigation of developments. We have created educational opportunities for our students of all ages and we have secured long-term revenue streams to support these unique educational opportunities. We have established partnerships with international proponents to enhance our economic opportunities and to help build infrastructure at Six Nations. This has also allowed us to secure land holdings to expand our much-needed land base, but we have had these efforts thwarted by Canada's additions to reserve policy.
Six Nations of the Grand River are including themselves in acceptable developments within our treaty lands, subject to Six Nations own consultation and accommodation policy. We are producing revenues and other creative accommodations to address our people's needs. These are needs that the crown in right of Canada fails to address on an almost daily basis. All the while, Six Nations are not required to extinguish a thing. We do, however, entertain these agreements, specifically without prejudice to Six Nations aboriginal and treaty rights and without prejudice to Six Nations' litigation against Canada and Ontario. Yet the sun still shines and the grass still grows and the rivers are still flowing.
To the members of the committee, I have outlined before you how Six Nations of the Grand River implements partnerships with indigenous communities, the provinces, territories, and other vital partners, and intends to fully implement the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations declaration. This is how nation-to-nation building with the indigenous peoples needs to begin.
For Six Nations, indigenous governance is tied to the land. As part of our June 1983 report to the parliamentary task force on Indian self-government, we stated that entrenchment of our right to self-government will also mean entrenching our relationship as a government with the federal government in specific ways. This relationship will be in the future, as in the past, between the people of Six Nations and the crown. Self-determination, Indian government, and a special relationship are empty words unless there are the resources to make them real.
Six Nations has been in court with Canada and Ontario since 1995, seeking resolve for our land rights and the financial mismanagement of our resources. We would prefer negotiating rooms instead of courtrooms. Under the present governments, both Canada and Ontario have indicated their willingness to negotiate, but new mandates are required for both.
Lastly, Six Nations calls on Canada and the province to return to the negotiating table with a proper mandate to rebuild this nation-to-nation relationship. Long-term, sustainable, and manageable revenue streams to offset the legal liabilities facing Canada today must go directly to the Six Nations government to supplement the educational and social shortfalls our community faces daily. This will take time, and we are willing to invest this time, and do it right for the Six Nations people's future, and for the future of our neighbours.
As we, the Six Nations, agreed to share our lands, we expect nothing less than Canada and Ontario agreeing to partnership building and revenue sharing from all uses of our lands and resources throughout our Haldimand Treaty. Six Nations wants to talk revenue sharing for all natural resources, including aggregate and gypsum, extraction and water consumption within our Haldimand Treaty lands. We want to discuss sharing in a percentage of all land transfers, taxes, and development fees.
We have always been key players in protecting Mother Earth, and as such, we want to continue to proceed down this path in our battle against climate change.
This is the process Six Nations has proven works. It is a process we feel the Prime Minister and the premier need to implement to resolve past wrongs, and without extinguishment of our children's treaty rights. Canada and Ontario can implement such a process to positively fulfill their political commitments to the indigenous people in Canada and to all Canadians.
Thank you. We look forward to this new beginning.