Six Nations, Canada: Negotiations update Federal government deems $500 million compensation "implausible" and "inflated" http://www.dunnvillechronicle.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1411793 Seven months after talks were suspended, Canada and Six Nations remained far apart in their positions on financial compensation for lands flooded during construction of the Welland Canal. At their Jan. 28 meeting, both parties read statements into the record. Haudenosaunee Confederacy representatives formally presented a position paper mailed to their Canadian counterparts last fall. In it, they rejected the $26 million settlement proposal and tagged the past to present value of 2,500 acres of flooded land at $500 million. They also indicated they were open to discussion on the issue. On behalf of Canada, senior federal negotiator Ron Doering read a statement saying $26 million was fair offer arrived at in good faith. Later he told reporters that the federal government was firm on that sum. Both parties will spend a month considering this week's exchange of positions. According to Six Nations Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton, who is on the negotiating team, the Confederacy will discuss Canada's response in council and band council members do their own review. Then the $26 million offer and responses to negotiation principles will be presented at community meetings in Six Nations. Negotiators meet next on Feb. 26 when Doering wanted the parties to set a schedule for meetings up to June. MacNaughton told reporters that many ideas in Doering's statement were "non starters". He was especially disappointed that the federal government does not recognize the Confederacy as a government. As well, chiefs told their federal counterparts that they are very concerned about people being arrested while development continues. This is occurring while provincial, federal and Six Nations representatives try to resolve these issues, MacNaughton noted. When asked if Ontario or Canada would walk away from negotiations if demonstrations acNaughton turned the tables. "The question is will we keep coming to their table as long as there's development," he noted saying this will be seriously considered. According to Doering's reading notes, Canada gave much thought to its response to the Six Nations $500 million value for the Welland Canal claim. He noted that Six Nations used selective application of Canadian legal principles for commercial compensation to arrive at the sum instead of applying principles used in courts to set compensation for aboriginal historic claims. "We believe that your approach leads to an implausible and inflated value and is not a practical basis for settlement," Doering said in the "without prejudice" response paper. He said it was unsupportable to calculate a value back to 1829 based on full compound interest for the entire sum. To reach their compensation level, the federal government relied on actual account patterns and past and present land values in the context of historical and economic information, he added. In their response, Six Nations said they will not relinquish rights or interest in lands for which they receive financial settlements. Doering said Canada's view is the flooded lands were surrendered in 1831, 1834 and 1844. To compromise, the $26 million offer left rights in place but also sought a promise that Six Nations would not act on them, he added. Before Canada provides compensation, it must be certain that further claims or occupations of these lands will not occur, stated Doering. "It is a matter we need to explore further if we are to reach an agreement on any of HSN's historical claims," he stated. Both MacNaughton and Doering realized the relationship between Six Nations and the Crown must be rebuilt. Doering suggested shaping it toward the future while respecting the past. "The nature of the relationship and the respect to us is paramount to be able to move forward with this process," said MacNaughton. In response to Six Nations suggestions for future negotiations, Doering rejected a proposal for new legislation requiring the three parties to negotiate. He also said the specific and comprehensive claims policies do not limit negotiations but also indicated that federal policy or "law applying to Indians" might govern negotiations in some cases. Willing to explore Haudenosaunee jurisdiction over its lands and people, Doering said the lands will not be completely immune in all circumstances from federal or provincial laws. In their statement, the chiefs asked Canada to commit to mediation if the talks fail. In response, Doering said the federal government does not agree to that at this time. Instead the federal government is willing to resort to judicial resolution in the courts as a negotiation alternative. Both federal and Six Nations representatives did agree to reviewing the negotiation process itself. MacNaughton said he wanted to see the main table remain in place. Other side tables or committees might no longer be necessary, noted Doering. He pointed out that Ontario has suggested a land use planning committee but Six Nations has not accepted the proposal. It was suggested by former provincial negotiator Murray Coolican as an alternative to demonstrations and occupations or reclamations of pieces of property. For the new provincial negotiator, Tom Molloy, this was his first meeting. He said it would take several to get to know people and to get up to speed on the issues. Even he was briefed, he said it was a lot different hearing from the parties at the table. Copyright © 2009 Dunnville Chronicle