‘Mediator’ alienates Stoneys, sisters
By Shawn Logan
The Eagle
Both sides locked in a dispute over a $27 million casino on the Stoney Nakoda First Nation are distancing themselves from a proposed agreement drafted by a man claiming to represent the Mohawk Warriors Society from Oka, Québec.
The nation and three elderly sisters — Eliza Holloway, 75, Alice Twoyoungmen, 67, and Winnie Francis, 77 — have locked horns over the corner of Highway 40 and the Trans-Canada Highway, the site for the proposed casino. The sisters claim they have hereditary rights to the land and that they weren’t properly consulted.
On Oct. 24, the sisters and their supporters successfully blocked construction on an access road while Jim Shanks, claiming to represent the Mohawks, appeared as a self-appointed mediator.
But a “proposed agreement between the three sisters and the chiefs” drafted by Shanks is being disavowed by both sides.
Trez McCaskill, chief operating officer for the Stoneys, said the nation has no intention of having the issue solved by outsiders.
“The chiefs are not prepared to have an outside person to negotiate or discuss nation business,” McCaskill said Nov. 28. “The chiefs haven’t given that any regard at all.”
Christine Goodwin, who represents the sisters, said she has informed the Stoneys that Shanks doesn’t speak for them.
“He’s not authorized to do any proposed agreements,” the incredulous lawyer said when told of the draft settlement Nov. 28. “He’s just trying to make some money.”
Among the items included in the settlement is that a video be made of the disputed land and its connections to the families. A plaque would also be erected recognizing the Amos family (to which the sisters belong) and the video would play in the casino. The sisters would also be hired by the casino as “consultants” and earn a monthly salary of $500 each for their work on the “theme of the casino until they so choose to quit.”
Also included is “an all expense(s) paid vacation for the three sisters to Las Vegas for three days . . . and $500 in casino chips.”
Marty Wildman, Holloway’s son-in-law and the primary spokesperson for the sisters, said the plan holds little appeal and Shanks wasn’t given any direction to interfere in the dispute.
“There is no agreement on the table,” Wildman said Nov. 28. “He has no right to negotiate anything on behalf of the sisters.”
Wildman said he subsequently learned Shanks does not represent the Mohawks.
“We were told that he is not a member of the society and he only does business with them,” he said. “Nobody asked him to mediate or negotiate anything.”
Reached for comment just outside Toronto Nov. 28, Shanks said he plans to seek payment for his “work” via the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC).
Shanks, who admitted he was a member of the Chippewa First Nation but claims to represent the Mohawks on the casino issue, said he was asked to intervene by McCaskill, which the Stoney administrator denies.
Shanks accused the family of the three sisters of “looking for money,” while nation officials are guilty of “looking to raise funds,” by building the casino.
“They didn’t do it the right way,” Shanks said, taking aim at both sides in the dispute.
He is seeking $14,000 for his efforts and $5,500 for having to postpone his wedding to handle the matter.
By taking the province to court, Shanks said it would likely be the death knell for the casino plans on that site.
“I don’t think the (AGLC) is going to want to deal with the casino after that,” he said.
Marilyn Carlyle-Helms, a spokesperson for AGLC, dismissed the suggestion that it would be on the hook for the bill.
“It comes down to who did he have a contract with,” Carlyle-Helms said Nov. 28. “I don’t see anything that would involve us.”
She noted the AGLC’s involvement ended once it granted the casino licence to the nation.

