Saturday, 19 July 2014

The Six Nations Elected Council Chief's Assessment of the Meeting with the Province and County

To date I have spoken at length as to the reaction of the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) through their "representatives" the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) - specifically it's Director.  Also the Ontario Aboriginal Affairs and Infrastructure Ministers Zimmer and Duguid, as well as the Mayor of the County of Haldimand, Ken Hewitt have all weighed in with their take on how well the meeting with Six Nations Elected Chief (SNEC) Ava Hill went.  However there has been to date virtual silence from the latter as to the meeting of 9 July 2014.  However the most recent issue of "Two Row Times" (TRT), July 16th, 2014 (p.4) included an article entitled, Elected Chief Hill reports on summit.  Apparently the information comes from an interview at radio station CKRZ.  As I have indicated previously, the Elected Council does not have a trusted voice in the print media to whom they can turn directly.

Here follows some of the "highlights" of the interview as reported in TRT: 

1)  First Chief Ava Hill noted that the HCCC was invited to participate in the meeting but declined, mentioned the bylaw of Haldimand County and that they were going to remove the barricade, an action precipitated by 'anti-Native rights activist Gary McHale', but that, "As of now, no further action has taken place". 

        Comment:  I am hoping that Chief Hill did not make the above statement about Gary McHale, but rather that it was the reporter for TRT that added the statement that I have put in bold print.  Since there are no quotation marks around the statement in TRT which would attribute the comment to Chief Hill, it was likely the latter.  I expect that Chief Hill knows that McHale is a pro civil rights activist who challenges to government to enforce the law, and not enable a double standard where "Natives" get away with things that no "non-Native" could dream of doing (e.g., illegally setting up a contraband smoke shop on Hydro One land).  One law for all Canadians - that is hardly "anti-Native rights".

2)  Chief Hill commented that, "I don't think anybody wants to see another violent situation erupt", she said.  She also spoke of her, having, "talked about the situation with Haldimand County, and our position is very clear to them that that (the) land has to be turned back to Six Nations". 

Furthermore, Mayor Hewitt's major priority at this first summit was to discuss the use of the land as opposed to ownership, and hopes the former DCE land be used for something that is "going to benefit both communities".

"We can 'blue sky' on that", said Hill, "but I made it quite clear that even if we go that route, it is still paramount that the land has to be under the control of Six Nations before we can do that". 

        Comment:  It is disappointing that Chief Hill did not say that the Federal Government needs to produce the surrender signed by 47 Chiefs on 18 December 1844 so that everyone can assess the merits of the matter will an awareness of the documentation.  Secondly the matter of turning the land over to Six Nations is likely political since the HCCC have been making this demand, and so any less, or any accommodation on the matter, would have rankled the Confederacy supporters - so she needed to appear strong on this aspect.  However what she doesn't say, and what is vitally important, is that when she says "Six Nations" whether she means turning the land over to SNEC control or the control of HCCC - in other words the radical HDI who are responsible for a litany of illegal acts perpetrated in Haldimand and Brant Counties. 

3)  Then Chief Hill stated that, "We know that the federal government was missing with respect to the land rights issue" so that no matter what is decided between SNEC, the Province and the County, "we still need to find ways of getting that land back to Six Nations".

        Comment:  Here is the "sticky wicket".  SNEC knows that it is the legitimate legally constituted body to represent Six Nations in any negotiations with the Federal Government, and that the Federal Government can only turn control of any Indian land over to SNEC and not HCCC - which has no recognition or status in law - it is merely a historic group who is asserting "rights" it believes it has based on a world that existed 100 plus years ago.  So this is really a set up for a power struggle between SNEC and HCCC.  It is possible that the former will cave to the latter, and put the Federal Government in an impossible position of not being able to do anything without an amendment to the Indian Act of 1876 - which would set a dangerous precedent and is very unlikely to happen - allowing all at Six Nations to come together against a common foe - the Federal Government. 

4)  Quoting from the article as to what Chief Hill then said, "Even if we get this DCE issue resolved there are still all the other unresolved issues", said Hill, indicating that there could be protests at other locations if outstanding claims are not responded to".

        Comment:  I am sure that the non-Native Communist - Anarchist activists on staff at TRT are positively salivating at the thought of more "protests".  However, perhaps this time the staff at the Federal Government Indian Affairs and Northern Development Ministry will provide copies of all of the documents from 1834 to 1848 to once again show people at Six Nations (not just their legal team and land negotiations researchers) proof that there is no basis for a claim on any land presently in the possession of any third party within the Haldimand Tract (which they did in 1995).  In my opinion it needs to be a situation of "you show me yours, and I will show you mine".  So if Six Nations has evidence that would refute the legal surrenders made by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council, then they need to provide this data to the Federal Government.

With the HCCC having no respect for SNEC, or even acceptance of their legal rights in negotiations with the Federal Government, there will once again be the same impasse that has always plagued Six Nations - factionalism.   Here the Federal Government's efforts will inevitably be frustrated by these endemic internal divisions which, unless a miracle is brought to earth by a messenger from Heaven, is going to ensure that nothing gets done.  The upshot is that again fingers will be conveniently pointed at the Federal Government as being the reason for the failure of negotiations

Until the Canadian public wakes up to the truth here, that there are two independent groups at Six Nations claiming the right to represent Haudenosaunee people, and that Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill not only for vast sums of monies given to Six Nations under terms such as transfer payments (none of which comes back in the form of taxes to the Canadian purse), but also for the fallout directly attributable to the factionalism at Six Nations.  This means that for example developers, and most recently corporations involved in the "Green Energy" (wind turbine) business (both of which pay taxes so that for example roads can be maintained), are caught in a vice. Here they frequently have to pay off (is this called bribe?) not only the legitimate representatives of Six Nations people, but also the group that uses various forms of militancy (including extortion and violence) to assert their position that they are the true representatives of the Haudenosaunee people of the Grand River (aka Six Nations).



  1. I believe Chief Hill has capitulated long ago and is taking directions from the HDI and that the SNEC only exists in name only; for all intents and purposes their goals are the same; there is little to no evidence that Ava Hill is speaking on behalf of all of her people and she is clearly using HDI tactics and propaganda such as blaming the Federal government and using Gary McHale and his supporters as scapegoats and the reason for any violent confrontations, neither SNEC or HCCC want to "kill the golden goose" by settling any issue that has the potential to bring in a steady stream of unlimited funds from so many different sources; and, as usual, the rule of law be damned!

  2. Food for thought, considering the circumstances facing those defined as "Indian", and residing on Reserve land across Canada, and the blatant double standard we face in my neck of the woods with some receiving "special" treatment not available to others:

  3. This is an even better summary of the White Paper of 1969:

    Why should Canadians perpetuate a discriminatory system that hasn't worked, and shows no signs that it has the remotest chance of being anything but broken to the point of being a complete write off? No one wins at present except government bureaucrats, lawyers, and corrupt chiefs. Feeding from the public trough is humiliating - or it should be.

  4. In that regard I highly recommend (if you haven't already read it) a book that examines those very issues and which Gary McHale and his supporters also highly recommended; it's called "Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation" by Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard; interestingly enough it's written by two academics who have had to experience some considerable backlash from their own community for having the courage to express their honest and evidence-based views....

  5. Thanks MyOrenda, I have read this book, have it in my library, and it has helped shape my thinking. Widdowson has received a lot of cold shoulders and worse in academia for daring to bring forward "inconvenient evidence" and publishing it. Sit ins have been staged by leftist protesters because of course he is labelled "racist" because it is the kneejerk word used to cover a myriad of perceived sins. A similarly excellent book along these lines is Calvin Helin, "Dances with Dependency: Out of Poverty through Self - Reliance" (2008). Helin is a lawyer, the son of a Tsimshian Chief and Gitachn'geek mother (British Columbia). It is popular, on the shelves in our local Chapters. Another book by an academic, Tom Flanagan, is also revealing, "Beyond the Indian Act", but he has received criticism for comments unrelated to the content of the book - which is well researched and thought provoking.

    1. DeYo, did you know that Calvin Helin got 32 rejection letters regarding his Dances With Dependency manuscript? He was told the book would not be well-received by aboriginal leaders because it “touched on reserve corruption.” He ended up borrowing $100,000 and published it himself. He said that grassroots aboriginals were among the biggest purchasers.

      The articles that discuss what I said above are:

      “Enormous opportunities seen for first nations entrepreneurs,” Vancouver Sun, April 9, 2010 (but there is a typo in the title, so just online search for “enormous opportunities” and “Calvin Helin.”).

      Jacobs, Mindelle. “First nations, last place,” Edmonton Sun, November 17, 2010.

      Last I heard, Dances With Dependency is a bestseller seven-times over. Helin has more than 1.8 million Twitter followers. Sun News, Sun Media, the Globe and Mail, the National Post and other media outlets have reported on his views from time to time, but I find that, generally speaking, the coverage he gets is relatively minimal.

    2. Very interesting information counterpoise. So glad Helin pushed forward as the book is a very insightful contribution to the debate from someone whose voice needs to be heard. Since he emphasizes the importance of self - reliance and weaning off Government assistance, he is likely a thorn in the side of the "Indian industry" who reap benefits from maintaining the status quo.