The Six Nations Community is facing significant challenges. Some are quick to blame these ills on others, and events in the past. Some of the most significant problems are spelled out by Elected Councillor Helen Miller as seen here, in a letter to Turtle Island News, May 25, 2011, p. 6.
She lists the following as issues confronting Six Nations:
1) A spate of break ins and vandalism at for example the Vets Hall.
2) The area being a hub for the disposal of stolen cars.
3) The epidemic of drug use, with Oxycontin being at present perhaps the most problematic.
4) Babies continue to be born with FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome) to mothers who abuse alcohol.
5) More and more cigarette shops sprouting up (some of which are fronts for drug deals).
6) Six Nations members stealing land such as the Glebe Lands in order to for example grow tobacco.
7) An epidemic of domestic violence and sexual abuse [it should be noted that at least two rapes have been committed at the Douglas Creek Estates property since 2006 - the number likely being much larger].
8) Deadbeat dads.
9) Disrespect for elders [despite the ideal].
10) A high rate of suicide.
11) Continued bullying at the schools despite a "no - tolerance" rule.
12) The fighting between the Elected and Hereditary Councils.
13) Alienation and disinterest of youth.
14) Groups such as the Men's Fire telling youth that the Provincial laws do not apply to Six Nations, and that the Six Nations Police have no authority, which promotes lawlessness.
Miller emphasises that it is imperative that, we have to stop blaming colonialism, stop blaming residential schools, and stop blaming 1924. The latter refers to the year that after years of dealing with a dysfunctional hereditary council, and with a stack of petitions from Six Nations members, the Federal Government via the RCMP locked the Longhouse and the system was changed to an elected council. It is almost a given that someone from Six Nations will use this as the "classic example" of how the Canadian Federal Government has over stepped its authority to impose their own assimilationist values on aboriginal people (I have heard this time and time and time again). Finally Councillor Miller wrote that, we all have to take responsibility for what has happened in our communities.
Nothing further really needs to be said about the matter - Councillor Miller has articulated the range of factors facing the Community at this time, and has provided a clear assessment in relation to this subject. Basically she is saying that instead of playing the "blame game" and pointing the finger at those outside the Community, for perceived wrongs from long ago, it will be more productive to accept that much of what is so troubling must be placed at their own doorstep. Thus by accepting personal responsibility, the Community will be better prepared to confront the challenges head on to find viable solutions.
DeYo.
Thursday, 14 November 2013
Smoke Shops and a Burger Stand - Illegalities and a Double Standard
The subject of this blog is one that, as with the record collections at the National Archives (Library and Archives Canada), I have a lot of direct personal knowledge. I will begin by a short rendition of my gradual introduction of what was to become a fixture of the landscape in my home area, the "smoke shack".
The Cigarette "Business": Certainly, by the 1980s it was common knowledge that there was a "smuggling problem" along the St. Lawrence River. Nothing new, it has been used as a smuggling route between the U.S.A. and Canada since the War of 1812. Where there is a buck to be made, then people are going to see what they can get away with - especially if the payoff is large. This was the case of the untaxed cigarettes which were making their way across the border at Cornwall Island from Akwesasne Mohawk Territory. In Prohibition days, the "gray ghosts" would speed across Lake Erie from Port Dover to deliver their cargo of booze to waiting U.S. customers in Erie, Pennsylvania. However with the cigarette smuggling, the trade was going in the opposite direction, then with the emergence of the Grand River Enterprises, the flow of product became a worldwide phenomenon.
There was a willing market as consumers had seen the taxes paid on tobacco products skyrocket - under the guise of trying to cause people to re-think their addiction. Alas, people simply get more creative, and find ways around the laws they believe to be unjust. A lot of the "product" was making its way to Six Nations and New Credit where it could be retailed at significantly lower prices. The Federal Government did, and still does, have a "hands off" policy (or at least practise) when it comes to what goes on over on the Reserves. In a way it was (and is) a win win situation for White consumers and Native retailers. It was lose lose for the Government (who was losing billions in uncollected taxes), and small mom and pop stores in small towns near the Reserves such as Hagersville and Caledonia or even Jarvis and Simcoe (people were willing to travel quite a distance to save money - this in the day when gas was a dollar and change per gallon).
Generally the "shops" which sold "rollies" and other tobacco products were small wooden shacks or trailers, each with a "catchy" name and flags and signs to try and set them apart from their nearest competitors. Back in the 1990s the shacks were scattered rather widely. I began to notice that some of the people I knew "in the business" were building homes with swimming pools and leading a lifestyle that I could only dream about. Obviously I was in the wrong business. It didn't really upset me, as more wealth was pouring into the local economy, and similar justifications. The fact that children were buying cigarettes, and that true addicts were encouraged to increase consumption due to the downward shift in prices, and that the stores in the nearby towns where we shopped for food or other essentials, was and is a serious consideration.
What really brought the problem home for me when my neighbour built one of these shacks directly across the road from my home. Now it was personal, and I have ever since been disgusted at the mere sight of these stains or poxes on the landscape. Needless to say, I wince when I have to take Highway 54 through Onondaga and Middleport and along Chiefswood Road into Ohsweken where the shacks are literally cheek by jowl.
In my research on this "phenomenon" I realized that it could only feed an academic interest, as I had no illusions of the shacks disappearing at any time. As far as I was concerned they were permanent, and I just needed to learn to live with them. Being an avid non-smoker and seeing cars coming and going, with White people making their purchases (with a twinge of guilt, I don't know), and my neighbours raking in the cash.
Relevant publications include:
1) The illicit tobacco trade in the U.S. and how funds are diverted to the Middle East to fund terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Queda - see here.
2) The effects of contraband cigarettes in Canada - see here.
3) RCMP's warning about illegal tobacco sales - see here.
4) How Canadian Natives became involved in the illicit sale of tobacco - see here.
5) The role played by Akwesasne - see here.
6) How today the situation has changed to the manufacture of tax free cigarettes on Canadian Reserves - see here.
7) Grand River Enterprises: This business, the largest employer at Six Nations, is now situated on Chiefswood Road just east of Ohsweken. It is a huge establishment, and apparently thriving. Some sense of this firm, established in 1996 (but with roots much earlier), can be found here. Apparently their annual revenue is over 12 million dollars, and they employ between 100 and 249 individuals - see here, however whoever did this research appears to have seriously underestimated the true figures. Further information can be found here, particularly on the various brands and types of tobacco products they manufacture. See the blog entry here for information about European customers.
Apparently the company has been beset with problems with those who are counterfeiting their products, as seen here. For the most comprehensive analysis of this business, which includes information that would directly contradict some of what is included in the previous links, see here. Deals with the Chinese will no doubt prove most lucrative. I have been to China, and based on simple observation, almost everyone smokes. So there could be huge demand for GRE product in that part of the world.
I have been unable to locate a website for the company, however they do have a Facebook page.
While Grand River Enterprises may have something of a shady past, it, after a lot of legal wrangling, has been incorporated as a Canadian company, and continues to grow with efforts that seem clearly legal, and those which are highly questionable (and at times the subject of lawsuits). Meanwhile the primary shareholders have become multi - millionaires, and one must congratulate them for their entrepreneurial spirit - and their efforts to "give back" to Six Nations.
Caledonia Example: Some of the smoke shacks which sell GRE (or other) products, however, have been little more than a thorn in the side of the community in which they are located. A classic example is found at the end of Argyll Street at the south end of Caledonia, where the owners insist that the laws that apply to the rest of the community do not apply to them - despite being on off - Reserve land. Protests by local residents have, since 2007, attempted to force the OPP to close down the shop. In late November of that year, Gary McHale was physically assaulted by the owner of the shack - see here. Since 2008 the Provincial Government has attempted to evict the owners of the smoke shack at the end of Argyll Street (where it joins the Highway 6 bypass) - see here. The establishment is on Provincial land, not part of DCE but rather Hydro One land, but justified (if that is necessary) as lands never ceded. The fact that this claim flies in the face of air tight evidence is of no concern - no one has tackled this potentially explosive issue of presenting the facts and then enforcing the law. While the matter has been brought up in the Provincial Parliament, and promises as to actions to be taken or in the process of being taken, have been made. Absolutely nothing whatsoever has ever been done - and the shack continues to do business defiantly but with resolve (they are not going to back down).
The smoke shack issue has been taken on as a particular cause by one local resident, Doug Fleming, who attempted, via various protests and actions, to show the hypocrisy of the entire matter. A question asked by Mr. Fleming was, "what if I set up a smoke shop", would the OPP tolerate it as they have tolerated the illegal shops presently dotting the land? The various events related to his efforts can be seen here.
It seems then that the manufacturing and retailing of cigarettes by Six Nations is controversial, and something of a two edged sword. No doubt it has brought wealth to Six Nations, but at what price? My opinion of the smoke shack and related matters is that things are a whole lot better if they are confined to the areas of the Reserve which are in no way contentious - say Tuscarora Township.
Also on the Argyll Street property, a "hamburger stand" was built on the same property as the smoke shack, and there was evidence of multiple health and safety code violations that should have been addressed by a Haldimand Bylaw Officer. Complaints were registered by concerned citizens, but the word went out that any attempt to enforce the law would be met be force. So once again the belief that Six Nations are exempt from those laws meant to protect all citizens, including those at Six Nations, was pressed into service and the message was, go ahead, try to enforce the law, which now included a Court Injunction to cease and desist until proper measures could be taken to bring the establishment "up to code". "Good luck to you".
It actually took a local resident, once again, Doug Fleming, to bring the matter to a head. On 7 July 2013 Doug read a formal complaint about, for example the lack of inspectors and permits for anything going at this site. See video of event here. It appears that this most recent effort at least brought the Haldimand Health Department to an awareness, and they appeared to take the matter seriously. Previously the bylaw officer refused to issue a notice of infraction to the owners without OPP backup (which was not given). So things had stalled until Mr. Fleming's efforts bore fruit. While Dr. Malcolm Lock did issue an injunction against the establishment, he and the owner entered into negotiations instead of immediate enforcement. Alas, what we have learned of late, time and time again, is that negotiations are fine, as long as the Six Nations obtain what they want. Being told what to do does not sit well, even if the requirements of adhering to the law and maintaining a safe work environment surely could not be disputed. However this is Caledonia, so .........
If one was to be entirely objective about this situation, it should not go without notice that the violations were of those things that even common sense would dictate that something be done - these were not subtle concocted reasons. An establishment that serves food must have suitable toilet facilities (rather than staff taking a piss in the brush nearby), a place where staff can wash their hands, potable water including hot water for washing and cleaning purposes, and so on. Of course we could veer into the fact that the place was a shack, and that there was no guarantee that it would not fall in on staff or customers because it had not been inspected by a building inspector - nor was a permit issued. Yet the owner believed he had a right to behave in any way he saw fit - the law be damned. Eventually he relented somewhat, probably because the press was so negative it was bound to have an effect on business, and so he promised to comply with the Court Injunction. Promises tend to be believed, but whether there is evidence of any compliance, I do not know. As of September 2013, the business was still failed to comply with the Health Department requests, and ignored the Court Injunction (see here). Anyway, the place and its affiliated illegal smoke shack are open for business complete with two Plains Indian TeePees on site and the Confederacy flag flying proudly (except when the wind shreds it).
The most recent information about the business at the end of Argyll Street comes from Turtle Island News, November 13, 2013, p. 7. Here the reporter uses the headline, "Confederacy council leases land to smoke huts and burger stand, $1". The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council of course maintains that the establishments are constructed upon are the lands, "unceded and belong to Haudenosaunee". Haldimand County argues that the lands are, "registered in the provincial land registry". As noted before, while a Court Injunction was issued by Justice Arrell, the matter was adjourned while the parties worked out the health - related issues with Dr. Lock. It appears that the owners have simply ignored, once again, any compliance with health regulations and do business under the name of, "Plank Road Grill" - the rationale for non-compliance being that they are under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy. The HCCC legal advisor, Aaron Detlor, maintains that, the underlying title is still with the HCCC and the lands are registered with HCCC's land registry system which includes all lands in the Haldimand Tract and the Nanfan Treaty area. In my opinion, it is time to take this claim to Court - let the HCCC face the facts of the "Holmes Report". There are still Court matters facing the owners, which will be addressed in December or January of 2014. Hopefully at this time Justice Arrell will decide to lower the boom, and, address the false claim of Six Nations ownership of all the Haldimand Tract and all of Southwestern Ontario.
DeYo.
The Cigarette "Business": Certainly, by the 1980s it was common knowledge that there was a "smuggling problem" along the St. Lawrence River. Nothing new, it has been used as a smuggling route between the U.S.A. and Canada since the War of 1812. Where there is a buck to be made, then people are going to see what they can get away with - especially if the payoff is large. This was the case of the untaxed cigarettes which were making their way across the border at Cornwall Island from Akwesasne Mohawk Territory. In Prohibition days, the "gray ghosts" would speed across Lake Erie from Port Dover to deliver their cargo of booze to waiting U.S. customers in Erie, Pennsylvania. However with the cigarette smuggling, the trade was going in the opposite direction, then with the emergence of the Grand River Enterprises, the flow of product became a worldwide phenomenon.
There was a willing market as consumers had seen the taxes paid on tobacco products skyrocket - under the guise of trying to cause people to re-think their addiction. Alas, people simply get more creative, and find ways around the laws they believe to be unjust. A lot of the "product" was making its way to Six Nations and New Credit where it could be retailed at significantly lower prices. The Federal Government did, and still does, have a "hands off" policy (or at least practise) when it comes to what goes on over on the Reserves. In a way it was (and is) a win win situation for White consumers and Native retailers. It was lose lose for the Government (who was losing billions in uncollected taxes), and small mom and pop stores in small towns near the Reserves such as Hagersville and Caledonia or even Jarvis and Simcoe (people were willing to travel quite a distance to save money - this in the day when gas was a dollar and change per gallon).
Generally the "shops" which sold "rollies" and other tobacco products were small wooden shacks or trailers, each with a "catchy" name and flags and signs to try and set them apart from their nearest competitors. Back in the 1990s the shacks were scattered rather widely. I began to notice that some of the people I knew "in the business" were building homes with swimming pools and leading a lifestyle that I could only dream about. Obviously I was in the wrong business. It didn't really upset me, as more wealth was pouring into the local economy, and similar justifications. The fact that children were buying cigarettes, and that true addicts were encouraged to increase consumption due to the downward shift in prices, and that the stores in the nearby towns where we shopped for food or other essentials, was and is a serious consideration.
What really brought the problem home for me when my neighbour built one of these shacks directly across the road from my home. Now it was personal, and I have ever since been disgusted at the mere sight of these stains or poxes on the landscape. Needless to say, I wince when I have to take Highway 54 through Onondaga and Middleport and along Chiefswood Road into Ohsweken where the shacks are literally cheek by jowl.
In my research on this "phenomenon" I realized that it could only feed an academic interest, as I had no illusions of the shacks disappearing at any time. As far as I was concerned they were permanent, and I just needed to learn to live with them. Being an avid non-smoker and seeing cars coming and going, with White people making their purchases (with a twinge of guilt, I don't know), and my neighbours raking in the cash.
Relevant publications include:
1) The illicit tobacco trade in the U.S. and how funds are diverted to the Middle East to fund terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Queda - see here.
2) The effects of contraband cigarettes in Canada - see here.
3) RCMP's warning about illegal tobacco sales - see here.
4) How Canadian Natives became involved in the illicit sale of tobacco - see here.
5) The role played by Akwesasne - see here.
6) How today the situation has changed to the manufacture of tax free cigarettes on Canadian Reserves - see here.
7) Grand River Enterprises: This business, the largest employer at Six Nations, is now situated on Chiefswood Road just east of Ohsweken. It is a huge establishment, and apparently thriving. Some sense of this firm, established in 1996 (but with roots much earlier), can be found here. Apparently their annual revenue is over 12 million dollars, and they employ between 100 and 249 individuals - see here, however whoever did this research appears to have seriously underestimated the true figures. Further information can be found here, particularly on the various brands and types of tobacco products they manufacture. See the blog entry here for information about European customers.
Apparently the company has been beset with problems with those who are counterfeiting their products, as seen here. For the most comprehensive analysis of this business, which includes information that would directly contradict some of what is included in the previous links, see here. Deals with the Chinese will no doubt prove most lucrative. I have been to China, and based on simple observation, almost everyone smokes. So there could be huge demand for GRE product in that part of the world.
I have been unable to locate a website for the company, however they do have a Facebook page.
While Grand River Enterprises may have something of a shady past, it, after a lot of legal wrangling, has been incorporated as a Canadian company, and continues to grow with efforts that seem clearly legal, and those which are highly questionable (and at times the subject of lawsuits). Meanwhile the primary shareholders have become multi - millionaires, and one must congratulate them for their entrepreneurial spirit - and their efforts to "give back" to Six Nations.
Caledonia Example: Some of the smoke shacks which sell GRE (or other) products, however, have been little more than a thorn in the side of the community in which they are located. A classic example is found at the end of Argyll Street at the south end of Caledonia, where the owners insist that the laws that apply to the rest of the community do not apply to them - despite being on off - Reserve land. Protests by local residents have, since 2007, attempted to force the OPP to close down the shop. In late November of that year, Gary McHale was physically assaulted by the owner of the shack - see here. Since 2008 the Provincial Government has attempted to evict the owners of the smoke shack at the end of Argyll Street (where it joins the Highway 6 bypass) - see here. The establishment is on Provincial land, not part of DCE but rather Hydro One land, but justified (if that is necessary) as lands never ceded. The fact that this claim flies in the face of air tight evidence is of no concern - no one has tackled this potentially explosive issue of presenting the facts and then enforcing the law. While the matter has been brought up in the Provincial Parliament, and promises as to actions to be taken or in the process of being taken, have been made. Absolutely nothing whatsoever has ever been done - and the shack continues to do business defiantly but with resolve (they are not going to back down).
The smoke shack issue has been taken on as a particular cause by one local resident, Doug Fleming, who attempted, via various protests and actions, to show the hypocrisy of the entire matter. A question asked by Mr. Fleming was, "what if I set up a smoke shop", would the OPP tolerate it as they have tolerated the illegal shops presently dotting the land? The various events related to his efforts can be seen here.
It seems then that the manufacturing and retailing of cigarettes by Six Nations is controversial, and something of a two edged sword. No doubt it has brought wealth to Six Nations, but at what price? My opinion of the smoke shack and related matters is that things are a whole lot better if they are confined to the areas of the Reserve which are in no way contentious - say Tuscarora Township.
Also on the Argyll Street property, a "hamburger stand" was built on the same property as the smoke shack, and there was evidence of multiple health and safety code violations that should have been addressed by a Haldimand Bylaw Officer. Complaints were registered by concerned citizens, but the word went out that any attempt to enforce the law would be met be force. So once again the belief that Six Nations are exempt from those laws meant to protect all citizens, including those at Six Nations, was pressed into service and the message was, go ahead, try to enforce the law, which now included a Court Injunction to cease and desist until proper measures could be taken to bring the establishment "up to code". "Good luck to you".
It actually took a local resident, once again, Doug Fleming, to bring the matter to a head. On 7 July 2013 Doug read a formal complaint about, for example the lack of inspectors and permits for anything going at this site. See video of event here. It appears that this most recent effort at least brought the Haldimand Health Department to an awareness, and they appeared to take the matter seriously. Previously the bylaw officer refused to issue a notice of infraction to the owners without OPP backup (which was not given). So things had stalled until Mr. Fleming's efforts bore fruit. While Dr. Malcolm Lock did issue an injunction against the establishment, he and the owner entered into negotiations instead of immediate enforcement. Alas, what we have learned of late, time and time again, is that negotiations are fine, as long as the Six Nations obtain what they want. Being told what to do does not sit well, even if the requirements of adhering to the law and maintaining a safe work environment surely could not be disputed. However this is Caledonia, so .........
If one was to be entirely objective about this situation, it should not go without notice that the violations were of those things that even common sense would dictate that something be done - these were not subtle concocted reasons. An establishment that serves food must have suitable toilet facilities (rather than staff taking a piss in the brush nearby), a place where staff can wash their hands, potable water including hot water for washing and cleaning purposes, and so on. Of course we could veer into the fact that the place was a shack, and that there was no guarantee that it would not fall in on staff or customers because it had not been inspected by a building inspector - nor was a permit issued. Yet the owner believed he had a right to behave in any way he saw fit - the law be damned. Eventually he relented somewhat, probably because the press was so negative it was bound to have an effect on business, and so he promised to comply with the Court Injunction. Promises tend to be believed, but whether there is evidence of any compliance, I do not know. As of September 2013, the business was still failed to comply with the Health Department requests, and ignored the Court Injunction (see here). Anyway, the place and its affiliated illegal smoke shack are open for business complete with two Plains Indian TeePees on site and the Confederacy flag flying proudly (except when the wind shreds it).
The most recent information about the business at the end of Argyll Street comes from Turtle Island News, November 13, 2013, p. 7. Here the reporter uses the headline, "Confederacy council leases land to smoke huts and burger stand, $1". The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council of course maintains that the establishments are constructed upon are the lands, "unceded and belong to Haudenosaunee". Haldimand County argues that the lands are, "registered in the provincial land registry". As noted before, while a Court Injunction was issued by Justice Arrell, the matter was adjourned while the parties worked out the health - related issues with Dr. Lock. It appears that the owners have simply ignored, once again, any compliance with health regulations and do business under the name of, "Plank Road Grill" - the rationale for non-compliance being that they are under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy. The HCCC legal advisor, Aaron Detlor, maintains that, the underlying title is still with the HCCC and the lands are registered with HCCC's land registry system which includes all lands in the Haldimand Tract and the Nanfan Treaty area. In my opinion, it is time to take this claim to Court - let the HCCC face the facts of the "Holmes Report". There are still Court matters facing the owners, which will be addressed in December or January of 2014. Hopefully at this time Justice Arrell will decide to lower the boom, and, address the false claim of Six Nations ownership of all the Haldimand Tract and all of Southwestern Ontario.
DeYo.
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
Why Has So Little Progress Been Made in Negotiations Between Six Nations and the Government of Canada?
At Six Nations, as reflected for example in the content of articles published in Turtle Island News and Two Row News, the Government of Canada, through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), is constantly being targeted as the source of the various problems which have driven a wedge between the people of Six Nations and the surrounding communities.
The purported role of the Federal Government for standing in the way of talks to resolve outstanding issues of one sort or another is a thread that runs long and deep at Six Nations. The belief is that the Government of Canada is at fault for their perceived woes. Apparently there is one solution to the problem (which all acknowledge is going to be extraordinarily difficult to enact, if history is any guide) - addressing internal divisions at Six Nations. According to candidate for the postion of Elected Council Chie, Ross Johnson, When we fight against each other, we fall into the trap of the federal government. As long as we're scrapping together they don't have to come to the table with solutions to our land rights, our legal rights, our human rights (Turtle Island News, November 6, 2013, p. 2). In all of these discussions, all that are mentioned are rights, not responsibilities - although this should be the subject of a separate blog post. So blame the Federal Government - this is endemic at Six Nations and the "Government" is seen as the cause of the 2006 "Caledonia crisis" (or "reclamation", depending on who you ask). By in large, Six Nations see INAC as directly responsible for this incident and subsequent events. For example see, Lynda Powless, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictoral History, Ohsweken, Turtle Island News, 2006.
As I have noted time and again in this blog (and almost all at Six Nations acknowledge this to be true), a very major difficulty is factionalism, and in particular that between the Six Nations Elected Chiefs (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC). The two parties lock horns on every conceivable matter, and although SNEC is the Government recognised body through which legal negotiations can take place, the HCCC have been persistent and adamant that they are the legitimate body that should be at the negotiating table with the Federal Government. Over and over, this division has virtually ensured that no progress can be made - but the Federal Government will still take it on the chin since they are the group that all at Six Nations can agree are the source of the present difficulties.
The "cheek" of some people, even within the body that is mandated to negotiate with the Federal Government, is positively astounding to those outside the Six Nations Community. For example, in the recent debate of candidates for the position of Chief of the Elected Council, candidate Ava Hill said in describing her leadership abilities that, the federal government doesn't tell me what to do. The people in the federal government shudder when they hear my name, I challenge them (Turtle Island News, November 6, 2013, p. 3). So much for bargaining in good faith as equals.
So what is the real story here, the one that can be backed up with facts irrespective of beliefs? In fact the Federal Government was forced to abandon negotiations when, In March 1995, Six Nations filed a lawsuit against the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, which also relates to how Six Nations' lands and monies were managed by the Crown. None the less, informal talks continued with Six Nations, and both the Governments of Canada and Ontario, who would be the three parties to any agreement that resulted. After the "Caledonia crisis", talks resumed and, based on the wishes of Six Nations, the priority claim was that relating to the flooding caused by the Welland Canal Feeder in the 1830s and 40s (and beyond). The offer from the Federal Government was $26 million dollars. As someone who has examined the available documents, who is familiar with the history and geography of the affected area, I would venture to say that this was a rather generous offer. The Six Nations countered with an offer to settle of $500 million dollars - in other words half a billion dollars for something that pertained to a period of about 10 to 20 years, 180 or so years ago. Hence it became apparent to one and all outside of the Six Nations negotiating team, that to settle the various claims there would be a demand for many billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers monies. One wonders, "what were they thinking?". How can Canada, especially with its present fiscal situation, and the many other First Nations groups demanding "financial justice" even think that this would be viable? Of course they did not accept the counter offer. In real estate terms, it was insulting and entirely unrealistic - so why proceed with spending endless hours at the negotiating table when the outcome is going to be "off the wall" demands. Demands must be tempered with a knowledge of the realities of the situation, and what Canadian taxpayers would be burdened with based on only one side's view of what would bring justice to the fore.
So who are the "Six Nations" in these negotiations? Would the Elected Chiefs really endorse a proposal that is indefensible on each and every account? Why has so little progress been made? A decision was made at the time of the "Caledonia crisis" to turn the responsibility of land claims negotiations over to the Confederacy Chiefs. This decision by the Elected Chiefs would virtually ensure that nothing but the spinning of wheels could be expected in any negotiations. Since I have noted elsewhere (repeatedly), various groups claim the "right" to negotiate on behalf of the Confederacy Chiefs - groups who often in open conflict. See here for Elected Councillor Helen Miller's very pointed statement about the change of guard at the negotiation table.
Despite all of the unrealistic demands, In August 2009, Six Nations formally reactivated their 1995 lawsuit. Canada advised Six Nations and Ontario of its willingness to continue participating in negotiations. Thus, it was Six Nations that has in fact ensured that negotiations grind to a halt, with the Federal Government one again facing a formal lawsuit. How with all honesty and in good faith could Six Nations behave in this manner, then claim that they are the victim of the process. That does not square with the facts. Furthermore, there is absolutely no guarantee that the HCCC and their "representatives" would agree to whatever is negotiated since they have their own competing agenda. So the Government is beat, with their backs against the wall, and nowhere to move - yet criticised as the party responsible for the problems at Six Nations. How could so many people be blind to the realities? My guess is that in a game where you have painted yourself as a victim, it is going to be all or nothing here. My way or the high way. In my opinion, until the Six Nations negotiating team becomes aware of the way in which progress can be made (at any negotiating table in any part of the world), then the Government is beat and everyone will continue to spin their wheels.
The entire history and details of the negotiations between 1980 and 2009 (not much has happened after Six Nations made a demand for a half a billion dollars for flooding between the 1820s and the surrender of 1841), can be found in a very carefully worded document from the Federal Government seen here. For the Six Nations perspective on the process see here.
In conclusion, Six Nations will have to come to terms with the "Holmes Report" (submitted by Joan Holmes and Associates to The Corporation of the City of Brantford in 2009) noted elsewhere in this blog, and after accepting that the land claims do not rest on any legally defensible ground, focus on the financial mismanagement or misappropriation issues and see where that line of enquiry will lead - but with reasonable expectations for compensation for events that occurred often for only 10 years or less before the general surrender of 1841. I hold out little hope of anything of material significance coming out of any further talks. As recent events have shown, there is nothing positive to be accomplished except creating the illusion that "talks are continuing".
Update: In Two Row Times, November 20th, 2013, p. 3 there appears an article, What about SN litigations against Brantford and the Crown?. The reporter questions the status of these negotiations, and asks whether they are likely to be settled within his lifetime.
The current Director of Lands and Resources (an Elected Council mandated division) is Lonny Bomberry, a lawyer. He updated the reporter as to the current situation. Bomberry said that concerning land, most of these land patents, which put in third party hands, were given illegally, he concedes, 'The problem with Canadian law is that after a while if you don't exercise your legal rights to get it back, your rights disappear''. This refers to what the present author has spoken about before under "Statute of Limitations". The reporter then states that, Bomberry seems intent to be patient and wait as long as it takes, meanwhile, if deals can be worked out with developers to at least accommodate Six Nations something, he is all for that. Bomberry told the reporter that in a way municipalities such as Brantford are off the hook, based on a decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the Salmon Arm case which puts the responsibility of negotiating on the shoulders of the Crown, not the municipalities. In what seems to be a revealing statement, Bomberry says that continuing to push forward in the Courts may not be "cost efficient". Specifically, Litigation is expensive and it can drag out for years, ....... And especially something like this when you need historical experts. It could take years. I suppose we could push that issue if we wanted to, but we have chosen to try and get this worked out through negotiation, that's always the easier way to do it.
In looking at the wording of Bomberry's replies, the present author is led to wonder whether he has been shown a copy of the "Holmes Report" which basically makes it abundantly clear that the Province of Ontario has an intact and valid land registration system, and that all of the land claims cannot be supported - hence the Federal Government not agreeing to stamp any of them (except a couple of minor ones such as those relating to the land the railways obtained relatively recently). Just reading between the lines, I wonder whether because Bomberry is well versed in the law, he has read the Holmes Report and knows that Six Nations are up against a brick wall, and so he would rather focus on the claims where Six Nations alleges that the Federal Government is responsible for the supposed fiduciary issues relating to monies placed in trust for the Six Nations, involving "wrongful management".
If Bomberry has not been given a copy of the "Holmes Report" of 2009 (which I have discussed in detail in earlier posts), then it seems only fair and responsible to do so - even though commissioned by The Corporation of the City of Brantford in 2009 and submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Ontario. Thus, in my opinion, Lonny Bomberry, the Director of Lands and Resources for the Elected Band Council should be privy to a copy of the "Holmes Report" in order to understand how it will be impacting the decisions of the Superior Court of Ontario. Also, the representatives of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) should also have access to this document since, although not officially sanctioned or recognised by for example the Federal Government of Canada, they have legitimacy in the eyes of a significant number of Six Nations members. In my view, unless anyone wants to play Don Quixote, and in a futile way "tilt at windmills", the facts have to eventually be acknowledged so that everyone can move on knowing what is valid and true.
DeYo.
The purported role of the Federal Government for standing in the way of talks to resolve outstanding issues of one sort or another is a thread that runs long and deep at Six Nations. The belief is that the Government of Canada is at fault for their perceived woes. Apparently there is one solution to the problem (which all acknowledge is going to be extraordinarily difficult to enact, if history is any guide) - addressing internal divisions at Six Nations. According to candidate for the postion of Elected Council Chie, Ross Johnson, When we fight against each other, we fall into the trap of the federal government. As long as we're scrapping together they don't have to come to the table with solutions to our land rights, our legal rights, our human rights (Turtle Island News, November 6, 2013, p. 2). In all of these discussions, all that are mentioned are rights, not responsibilities - although this should be the subject of a separate blog post. So blame the Federal Government - this is endemic at Six Nations and the "Government" is seen as the cause of the 2006 "Caledonia crisis" (or "reclamation", depending on who you ask). By in large, Six Nations see INAC as directly responsible for this incident and subsequent events. For example see, Lynda Powless, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictoral History, Ohsweken, Turtle Island News, 2006.
As I have noted time and again in this blog (and almost all at Six Nations acknowledge this to be true), a very major difficulty is factionalism, and in particular that between the Six Nations Elected Chiefs (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC). The two parties lock horns on every conceivable matter, and although SNEC is the Government recognised body through which legal negotiations can take place, the HCCC have been persistent and adamant that they are the legitimate body that should be at the negotiating table with the Federal Government. Over and over, this division has virtually ensured that no progress can be made - but the Federal Government will still take it on the chin since they are the group that all at Six Nations can agree are the source of the present difficulties.
The "cheek" of some people, even within the body that is mandated to negotiate with the Federal Government, is positively astounding to those outside the Six Nations Community. For example, in the recent debate of candidates for the position of Chief of the Elected Council, candidate Ava Hill said in describing her leadership abilities that, the federal government doesn't tell me what to do. The people in the federal government shudder when they hear my name, I challenge them (Turtle Island News, November 6, 2013, p. 3). So much for bargaining in good faith as equals.
So what is the real story here, the one that can be backed up with facts irrespective of beliefs? In fact the Federal Government was forced to abandon negotiations when, In March 1995, Six Nations filed a lawsuit against the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, which also relates to how Six Nations' lands and monies were managed by the Crown. None the less, informal talks continued with Six Nations, and both the Governments of Canada and Ontario, who would be the three parties to any agreement that resulted. After the "Caledonia crisis", talks resumed and, based on the wishes of Six Nations, the priority claim was that relating to the flooding caused by the Welland Canal Feeder in the 1830s and 40s (and beyond). The offer from the Federal Government was $26 million dollars. As someone who has examined the available documents, who is familiar with the history and geography of the affected area, I would venture to say that this was a rather generous offer. The Six Nations countered with an offer to settle of $500 million dollars - in other words half a billion dollars for something that pertained to a period of about 10 to 20 years, 180 or so years ago. Hence it became apparent to one and all outside of the Six Nations negotiating team, that to settle the various claims there would be a demand for many billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers monies. One wonders, "what were they thinking?". How can Canada, especially with its present fiscal situation, and the many other First Nations groups demanding "financial justice" even think that this would be viable? Of course they did not accept the counter offer. In real estate terms, it was insulting and entirely unrealistic - so why proceed with spending endless hours at the negotiating table when the outcome is going to be "off the wall" demands. Demands must be tempered with a knowledge of the realities of the situation, and what Canadian taxpayers would be burdened with based on only one side's view of what would bring justice to the fore.
So who are the "Six Nations" in these negotiations? Would the Elected Chiefs really endorse a proposal that is indefensible on each and every account? Why has so little progress been made? A decision was made at the time of the "Caledonia crisis" to turn the responsibility of land claims negotiations over to the Confederacy Chiefs. This decision by the Elected Chiefs would virtually ensure that nothing but the spinning of wheels could be expected in any negotiations. Since I have noted elsewhere (repeatedly), various groups claim the "right" to negotiate on behalf of the Confederacy Chiefs - groups who often in open conflict. See here for Elected Councillor Helen Miller's very pointed statement about the change of guard at the negotiation table.
Despite all of the unrealistic demands, In August 2009, Six Nations formally reactivated their 1995 lawsuit. Canada advised Six Nations and Ontario of its willingness to continue participating in negotiations. Thus, it was Six Nations that has in fact ensured that negotiations grind to a halt, with the Federal Government one again facing a formal lawsuit. How with all honesty and in good faith could Six Nations behave in this manner, then claim that they are the victim of the process. That does not square with the facts. Furthermore, there is absolutely no guarantee that the HCCC and their "representatives" would agree to whatever is negotiated since they have their own competing agenda. So the Government is beat, with their backs against the wall, and nowhere to move - yet criticised as the party responsible for the problems at Six Nations. How could so many people be blind to the realities? My guess is that in a game where you have painted yourself as a victim, it is going to be all or nothing here. My way or the high way. In my opinion, until the Six Nations negotiating team becomes aware of the way in which progress can be made (at any negotiating table in any part of the world), then the Government is beat and everyone will continue to spin their wheels.
The entire history and details of the negotiations between 1980 and 2009 (not much has happened after Six Nations made a demand for a half a billion dollars for flooding between the 1820s and the surrender of 1841), can be found in a very carefully worded document from the Federal Government seen here. For the Six Nations perspective on the process see here.
In conclusion, Six Nations will have to come to terms with the "Holmes Report" (submitted by Joan Holmes and Associates to The Corporation of the City of Brantford in 2009) noted elsewhere in this blog, and after accepting that the land claims do not rest on any legally defensible ground, focus on the financial mismanagement or misappropriation issues and see where that line of enquiry will lead - but with reasonable expectations for compensation for events that occurred often for only 10 years or less before the general surrender of 1841. I hold out little hope of anything of material significance coming out of any further talks. As recent events have shown, there is nothing positive to be accomplished except creating the illusion that "talks are continuing".
Update: In Two Row Times, November 20th, 2013, p. 3 there appears an article, What about SN litigations against Brantford and the Crown?. The reporter questions the status of these negotiations, and asks whether they are likely to be settled within his lifetime.
The current Director of Lands and Resources (an Elected Council mandated division) is Lonny Bomberry, a lawyer. He updated the reporter as to the current situation. Bomberry said that concerning land, most of these land patents, which put in third party hands, were given illegally, he concedes, 'The problem with Canadian law is that after a while if you don't exercise your legal rights to get it back, your rights disappear''. This refers to what the present author has spoken about before under "Statute of Limitations". The reporter then states that, Bomberry seems intent to be patient and wait as long as it takes, meanwhile, if deals can be worked out with developers to at least accommodate Six Nations something, he is all for that. Bomberry told the reporter that in a way municipalities such as Brantford are off the hook, based on a decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the Salmon Arm case which puts the responsibility of negotiating on the shoulders of the Crown, not the municipalities. In what seems to be a revealing statement, Bomberry says that continuing to push forward in the Courts may not be "cost efficient". Specifically, Litigation is expensive and it can drag out for years, ....... And especially something like this when you need historical experts. It could take years. I suppose we could push that issue if we wanted to, but we have chosen to try and get this worked out through negotiation, that's always the easier way to do it.
In looking at the wording of Bomberry's replies, the present author is led to wonder whether he has been shown a copy of the "Holmes Report" which basically makes it abundantly clear that the Province of Ontario has an intact and valid land registration system, and that all of the land claims cannot be supported - hence the Federal Government not agreeing to stamp any of them (except a couple of minor ones such as those relating to the land the railways obtained relatively recently). Just reading between the lines, I wonder whether because Bomberry is well versed in the law, he has read the Holmes Report and knows that Six Nations are up against a brick wall, and so he would rather focus on the claims where Six Nations alleges that the Federal Government is responsible for the supposed fiduciary issues relating to monies placed in trust for the Six Nations, involving "wrongful management".
If Bomberry has not been given a copy of the "Holmes Report" of 2009 (which I have discussed in detail in earlier posts), then it seems only fair and responsible to do so - even though commissioned by The Corporation of the City of Brantford in 2009 and submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Ontario. Thus, in my opinion, Lonny Bomberry, the Director of Lands and Resources for the Elected Band Council should be privy to a copy of the "Holmes Report" in order to understand how it will be impacting the decisions of the Superior Court of Ontario. Also, the representatives of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) should also have access to this document since, although not officially sanctioned or recognised by for example the Federal Government of Canada, they have legitimacy in the eyes of a significant number of Six Nations members. In my view, unless anyone wants to play Don Quixote, and in a futile way "tilt at windmills", the facts have to eventually be acknowledged so that everyone can move on knowing what is valid and true.
DeYo.
Monday, 11 November 2013
Grand River Notification Agreement - Blessing or Curse?
For some time now I have been hearing about the "need to consult" with representatives of Six Nations when it comes, particularly, to land development. I was not sure if there were formal or informal agreements in place, the scope of the mandate, and how binding the fruits of "consultation" were on the parties involved.
It was the manuscript by Garry Horsnell (2010), found here, which alerted me to the underpinnings of what is called the Grand River Notification Agreement (GRNA) - which seems to be involved in the "demands", confrontations, transfer of monies and so on which I read about in the media, and have experienced via my own work.
It has proven to be a difficult task to locate materials to shed light on the genesis of the first agreement dated 3 October 1996. One article which did precisely that, is now removed from the Internet, but can be viewed as a transcript here. Basically over the years leading up to the agreement, there had been numerous disruptions or protests, primarily at sites where developers where attempting to build homes. The protesters were primarily members of the Hereditary Band Council, now known as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) or their representatives. So in order to address the issue, representatives of various groups such as the Crown (Federal Government), Ontario, municipalities in the Grand River Watershed, the Six Nations, the Mississaugas of New Credit, and other interested parties prepared a joint agreement.
Apparently the negotiations were acrimonious, but in the end, all parties at the table signed this agreement, with one notable exception - the HCCC or their representatives who, ironically, were the prime reason for installing the agreement in the first place.
The GRNA was renewed two years later, on 3 October 1998 as seen here, although the original Government link only yields a "Page Not Found" message. Here the documentation pertaining to the renewal, prepared by the Federal Government, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), provides a comprehensive clause by clause record (7 pages) as to just what the parties were signing. The signators included INAC, Ontario, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), various municipalities along the Grand River from The Corporation of the Township of South Dumfries, south to The Corporation of the Town of Dunnville, along with the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of New Credit. There is a lot of verbiage here, but the parties agree to consult on matters that might impact the Grand River Watershed, including economic development, land use, and the environment. The document for example lists "Activities for Which Notification Will Be Given", such as when a municipality is "considering approval of a plan of subdivision", "passage of a new zoning bylaw, plus development of any lands effected by the Environmental Assessment Act, and related activities. It was further noted that the Term of the Agreement was to "remain in effect for 5 years ......... ". Also interesting is that in terms of what is termed, "No Legal Effect", clause 9. (a) reads, This Agreement in not legally binding on any of the Parties, nor will it affect a whole host other other matters such as, the validity of any act of any of the Parties. So basically this document is just a set of guidelines, and there is nothing at all which would require any party to comply with a request submitted by another party.
The Six Nations Land and Resources, Eco/Centre, see here, informs that, The Grand River Notification Agreement was renewed on October 3, 1998, October 3, 2003, and is in the process of a third renewal with an expected date of October 3, 2008. In addition they report that, The Six Nations Wildlife Management Office/Land Use Unit will continue to be involved with the GRNA ....... However the real issues of the unresolved Six Nations Specific Claims and the effects of uncertainty and impediments to economic development in Municipal communities continue to be a contentious issue. So I take from this that once again the oft cited issue of "unresolved" land claims issues is a roadblock to real progress, but that the agreement is a positive step.
Sometime in 2011 a draft was written, with the date left out, apparently to be used as a framework for a further renewal, as seen here. The document includes the logos of the Six Nations Elected Council, and that of the Corporation of the City of Brantford. If the 5 year renewal clause is still in effect, then the date of the next agreement would be 3 October 2013 - a date that has come and gone. It appears that the Federal Government was no longer an active participant, but as of February 2013 talks were still pushing ahead, as seen here, with the City of Brantford to try to bring the Federal Government back into the fold.
Reading between the lines, while the original intent was very positive, it must have become very evident after the events in Caledonia in 2006, that the agreement was something of a sham - or so it would seem. Clearly it was all a paper tiger, and by not including the HCCC, or any of its constituents such as Men's Fire, or the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), or the independent minded Mohawk Workers, or who knows who else since there is a montage of players each claiming a stake, but some have no "standing" with other groups at Six Nations, or with a municipality or Government office who probably don't know what to make of them, so are reticent to act.
So the protests, and blockages of construction, and similar actions have continued, but rather ad hoc rather than via consultation. Of course groups such as the HDI are only too willing to "consult", as long as the "application fee" is paid. What developer would voluntarily tolerate working in such a chaotic environment? An agreement forged with one group may simply irritate another group, and work stopages will happen irrespective of an agreement signed with say the Elected Band Council. Developers must conclude that they are frequently beat no matter which way they turn. Brant County and Brantford have recently been beset with further efforts to stop one or another development project, such as at Tutela Heights, and Birkett Lane (Erie Ave.). It really does not matter whether the land developer contacts the representatives of the Elected Council (parties to GRNA), unless all the "right" people or groups are contacted, it will likely be a no-go, or problems will surface. What a nightmare. One can see why Brantford is now fully geared up to obtain Superior Court Injunctions - but there are still those willing to test the limits and see if the law has any teeth.
The "need to consult" seems to be morphing, sending out tentacles to engulf previously unimagined efforts. The present legislation, as it relates to any development that might have an adverse impact of the archaeological resources of the Province, makes provisions to include those at Six Nations and New Credit trained as Monitors by the Association of Professional Archaeologists (see here). They will be consulted when a site is known to, or suspected to, include a Native component, even if the site is in Hamilton (see earlier blog posting). The above newsletter also mentions the difficulties (not resolved) as to how to work with both the Elected and Confederacy Councils since while the first is the legal entity of record, the second wields considerable authority, and a mechanism needs to be place to include them in the consultation. In the past the HDI have sent their Monitors to sites - how well trained or not these individuals are is a matter of conjecture. Native consultation is required by professional consultant archaeologists, but that does not stop "unrecognized" monitors from showing up and expecting a slice of the pie - holding the archaeological consultants as virtual hostages (with work stopages) until a fee that is deemed acceptable is forthcoming. I have discussed the matter recently with one consulting firm and a City Planner who were involved with a site that was owned by a member of my family, situated well outside the Grand River Tract. I know "from the horse's mouth" what is going on in this aspect of land use - even outside the Grand River Watershed - probably justified by the Nanfan Treaty of 1701.
Nothing is ever straightforward at Six Nations, factionalism is endemic, a point that is noted in almost every issue of every paper published at Six Nations (presently Turtle Island News and Two Row Times). The bottom line is that there is a general feeling even on the Reserve that unity will continue to prove illusive.
So, one might imagine that for example the developer of the McKenzie Meadows Project (see earlier blog post) across the road from Kanonhstaton (Douglas Creek Estates), is at the nail biting stage. Both abut Argyll Street. The new project is situated on the south / east side of Argyll Street, but with the first phase being slated for a location on the property that is furthest away from Kanonhstaton). So, having negotiated in good faith with the representatives of the Elected Band Council, in this case Six Nations Future, the developer would have the reasonable expectations that by following the new protocol, things will go smoothly. Their agreement was undoubtedly done with the hope, on both sides, of avoiding the "unpleasantness" of an event such as occurred 7 years ago just across Argyll Street. There must be lingering fears. What if the HDI demands their cut of the action? Will all the hard - earned good work be for nought? One can only wait and see, because in this neck of the woods, expect the unexpected.
Therefore, to answer the question posed by this post, the GRNA is neither a blessing or a curse, it is really a non-entity in the sense of anything meaningful. It does, however, give the illusion that something proactive is being done, so people can believe that consultation is occurring - so rest easier.
DeYo.
It was the manuscript by Garry Horsnell (2010), found here, which alerted me to the underpinnings of what is called the Grand River Notification Agreement (GRNA) - which seems to be involved in the "demands", confrontations, transfer of monies and so on which I read about in the media, and have experienced via my own work.
It has proven to be a difficult task to locate materials to shed light on the genesis of the first agreement dated 3 October 1996. One article which did precisely that, is now removed from the Internet, but can be viewed as a transcript here. Basically over the years leading up to the agreement, there had been numerous disruptions or protests, primarily at sites where developers where attempting to build homes. The protesters were primarily members of the Hereditary Band Council, now known as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) or their representatives. So in order to address the issue, representatives of various groups such as the Crown (Federal Government), Ontario, municipalities in the Grand River Watershed, the Six Nations, the Mississaugas of New Credit, and other interested parties prepared a joint agreement.
Apparently the negotiations were acrimonious, but in the end, all parties at the table signed this agreement, with one notable exception - the HCCC or their representatives who, ironically, were the prime reason for installing the agreement in the first place.
The GRNA was renewed two years later, on 3 October 1998 as seen here, although the original Government link only yields a "Page Not Found" message. Here the documentation pertaining to the renewal, prepared by the Federal Government, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), provides a comprehensive clause by clause record (7 pages) as to just what the parties were signing. The signators included INAC, Ontario, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), various municipalities along the Grand River from The Corporation of the Township of South Dumfries, south to The Corporation of the Town of Dunnville, along with the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of New Credit. There is a lot of verbiage here, but the parties agree to consult on matters that might impact the Grand River Watershed, including economic development, land use, and the environment. The document for example lists "Activities for Which Notification Will Be Given", such as when a municipality is "considering approval of a plan of subdivision", "passage of a new zoning bylaw, plus development of any lands effected by the Environmental Assessment Act, and related activities. It was further noted that the Term of the Agreement was to "remain in effect for 5 years ......... ". Also interesting is that in terms of what is termed, "No Legal Effect", clause 9. (a) reads, This Agreement in not legally binding on any of the Parties, nor will it affect a whole host other other matters such as, the validity of any act of any of the Parties. So basically this document is just a set of guidelines, and there is nothing at all which would require any party to comply with a request submitted by another party.
The Six Nations Land and Resources, Eco/Centre, see here, informs that, The Grand River Notification Agreement was renewed on October 3, 1998, October 3, 2003, and is in the process of a third renewal with an expected date of October 3, 2008. In addition they report that, The Six Nations Wildlife Management Office/Land Use Unit will continue to be involved with the GRNA ....... However the real issues of the unresolved Six Nations Specific Claims and the effects of uncertainty and impediments to economic development in Municipal communities continue to be a contentious issue. So I take from this that once again the oft cited issue of "unresolved" land claims issues is a roadblock to real progress, but that the agreement is a positive step.
Sometime in 2011 a draft was written, with the date left out, apparently to be used as a framework for a further renewal, as seen here. The document includes the logos of the Six Nations Elected Council, and that of the Corporation of the City of Brantford. If the 5 year renewal clause is still in effect, then the date of the next agreement would be 3 October 2013 - a date that has come and gone. It appears that the Federal Government was no longer an active participant, but as of February 2013 talks were still pushing ahead, as seen here, with the City of Brantford to try to bring the Federal Government back into the fold.
Reading between the lines, while the original intent was very positive, it must have become very evident after the events in Caledonia in 2006, that the agreement was something of a sham - or so it would seem. Clearly it was all a paper tiger, and by not including the HCCC, or any of its constituents such as Men's Fire, or the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), or the independent minded Mohawk Workers, or who knows who else since there is a montage of players each claiming a stake, but some have no "standing" with other groups at Six Nations, or with a municipality or Government office who probably don't know what to make of them, so are reticent to act.
So the protests, and blockages of construction, and similar actions have continued, but rather ad hoc rather than via consultation. Of course groups such as the HDI are only too willing to "consult", as long as the "application fee" is paid. What developer would voluntarily tolerate working in such a chaotic environment? An agreement forged with one group may simply irritate another group, and work stopages will happen irrespective of an agreement signed with say the Elected Band Council. Developers must conclude that they are frequently beat no matter which way they turn. Brant County and Brantford have recently been beset with further efforts to stop one or another development project, such as at Tutela Heights, and Birkett Lane (Erie Ave.). It really does not matter whether the land developer contacts the representatives of the Elected Council (parties to GRNA), unless all the "right" people or groups are contacted, it will likely be a no-go, or problems will surface. What a nightmare. One can see why Brantford is now fully geared up to obtain Superior Court Injunctions - but there are still those willing to test the limits and see if the law has any teeth.
The "need to consult" seems to be morphing, sending out tentacles to engulf previously unimagined efforts. The present legislation, as it relates to any development that might have an adverse impact of the archaeological resources of the Province, makes provisions to include those at Six Nations and New Credit trained as Monitors by the Association of Professional Archaeologists (see here). They will be consulted when a site is known to, or suspected to, include a Native component, even if the site is in Hamilton (see earlier blog posting). The above newsletter also mentions the difficulties (not resolved) as to how to work with both the Elected and Confederacy Councils since while the first is the legal entity of record, the second wields considerable authority, and a mechanism needs to be place to include them in the consultation. In the past the HDI have sent their Monitors to sites - how well trained or not these individuals are is a matter of conjecture. Native consultation is required by professional consultant archaeologists, but that does not stop "unrecognized" monitors from showing up and expecting a slice of the pie - holding the archaeological consultants as virtual hostages (with work stopages) until a fee that is deemed acceptable is forthcoming. I have discussed the matter recently with one consulting firm and a City Planner who were involved with a site that was owned by a member of my family, situated well outside the Grand River Tract. I know "from the horse's mouth" what is going on in this aspect of land use - even outside the Grand River Watershed - probably justified by the Nanfan Treaty of 1701.
Nothing is ever straightforward at Six Nations, factionalism is endemic, a point that is noted in almost every issue of every paper published at Six Nations (presently Turtle Island News and Two Row Times). The bottom line is that there is a general feeling even on the Reserve that unity will continue to prove illusive.
So, one might imagine that for example the developer of the McKenzie Meadows Project (see earlier blog post) across the road from Kanonhstaton (Douglas Creek Estates), is at the nail biting stage. Both abut Argyll Street. The new project is situated on the south / east side of Argyll Street, but with the first phase being slated for a location on the property that is furthest away from Kanonhstaton). So, having negotiated in good faith with the representatives of the Elected Band Council, in this case Six Nations Future, the developer would have the reasonable expectations that by following the new protocol, things will go smoothly. Their agreement was undoubtedly done with the hope, on both sides, of avoiding the "unpleasantness" of an event such as occurred 7 years ago just across Argyll Street. There must be lingering fears. What if the HDI demands their cut of the action? Will all the hard - earned good work be for nought? One can only wait and see, because in this neck of the woods, expect the unexpected.
Therefore, to answer the question posed by this post, the GRNA is neither a blessing or a curse, it is really a non-entity in the sense of anything meaningful. It does, however, give the illusion that something proactive is being done, so people can believe that consultation is occurring - so rest easier.
DeYo.
"Financial Justice" - Legitimate Claims by Six Nations?
As far as I am concerned, one thorny matter can largely be dispensed with, based on the facts of the matter - most Six Nations Land Claims. For example, the "Holmes Report" of 2009 (see here), which was outlined in detail with annotations in my earlier post, seems to be the basis by which the matter should be settled - if one is willing to focus on the "weight of evidence" - which in this case is rock solid. The only clearly proved land claim is Number 1, "Canadian National Railway Right-of-Way, Oneida Township (CNR Settlement)". It is the only one of the 29 claims which has been resolved, and may in fact be the only valid land claim. The good news for Six Nations is that on 24 December 1985, 259.171 acres were added to the Reserve (no. 40) lands to settle Claim 1. See here for a list and description of all 29 claims - each of which will now have to be reviewed in light of the "Holmes Report".
It should be noted that the "Holmes Report" has been submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford. His recent rulings reflect the content of this document. One can be sure that the Report has made its way to the negotiators of both the Federal and Provincial Governments. Hence, any further attempts to make claims that are unsupported will run up against the brick wall of facts and the truth. Both the concepts "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" would likely apply here.
The other broad category of claims has to do with Six Nations Financial Justice (as per the above booklet). In my experience, the biggest festering sore for Six Nations has to do with the Grand River Navigation Company (GRNC), the investment of Six Nations monies by their three Government appointed trustees, and the possible misappropriation of Six Nations Trust Funds in relation to this Project. As an example of the pressing concerns relating to the GRNC, the following statement in the booklet published one year after the 2006 "Caledonia crisis", speaks volumes. In, Lynda Powless, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictorial History, Ohsweken, Turtle Island News, 2006, a list of grievances is presented. One of the conclusions arrived at by the author is that, The Crown was systematically inducing the sale of Six Nations lands without lawful surrenders and misappropriated land payments into the works of the Grand River Navigation Company (and other Government expenditures) against the constant protests of the Six Nations of the Grand River Indians (p. 32). The bold print here is that of the present author.
Frankly, a good case could be mounted that in fact the Government, and or the trustees appointed by the Government, had botched their fiduciary responsibility in a very serious manner.
First, the entire project was touted as likely to bring large dividends, in a works that was "close to home", so the trustees sank perhaps an inordinate amount of Six Nations trust funds into the scheme - which to the trustees, and those higher ranking in the Government, was bound to bring prosperity to the Grand River Valley.
I would be the first to argue that the scheme was ill conceived. I have canoed from the Elora Gorge to the mouth of the Grand River. In summer, we spend almost as much time out of the canoe walking it down the River (due to its shallowness) as we do actually paddling. The only respite from this grind are in the areas backed up by the dams in the Kitchener - Waterloo area, Brantford, Caledonia and Dunnville. So anyone truly familiar with the River surely had trepidations about a scheme to harness the River and make it navigable from the mouth at Port Maitland, to Brantford (by then a Town).
The scheme was kick started by the dam at Dunnville and the feeder to the Welland Canal. The River was navigable to Dunnville. In an age where it was believed that navigation was the necessary ingredient to prosperity, the era of dam building "caught on" in Canada and the United States. Not wanting to be left behind in some sort of backwash, some local entrepreneurs began public meetings on 15 December 1827. The focus shifted to Brantford, where those meeting at Lovejoy's Inn decided to commission a study of the feasibility of improving the navigation along the Grand River between Brantford and Dunnville. As a consequence, the Grand River Navigation Company came into being, and was incorporated in 1832. There was, however, a rather large problem. The Province was deep in debt, and there were few sources of ready cash at the time to fund mega projects of this nature. However a "solution" was found. It was William Hamilton Merritt, the founder of the Welland Canal, who suggested to Lieutenant Governor Sir John Colborne that Indian funds held in England (by then a fairly considerable fund of ready cash) could be used to finance the GRNC. It does seem that Colborne honestly believed that the Indians, then quite impoverished, would benefit from the opening up of the region, thereby increasing prosperity, and in turn increasing the value of Indian lands and so creating more wealth for the Six Nations. It all made such good sense, but it rested on a house of cards.
For detailed information about the GRNC, see Cheryl MacDonald (Ed.), Grand Heritage: A History of Dunnville and the townships of Canborough, Dunn, Moulton, Sherbrooke and South Cayuga, Dunnville, Dunnville District Heritage Association, 1992. The definitive study on this subject is, Bruce Hill, The Grand River Navigation Company, Brantford, Brant Historical Publications, 1994. Unfortunately it is long out of print, and largely unavailable.
By 1833 Colborne was willing to recommend that the Six Nations take, "stock to a very large amount nearly the whole of the Charter". Apparently he would use W.J. Kerr and Augustus Jones, both of whom had Indian wives, to induce the Indians to "sanction the undertaking" (Johnston, p. 298). Discussions in the Executive Council of Upper Canada in 1840 make it clear that there was absolutely no intention to fleece the Indians, rather the Executive Council actually sided with the Six Nations stating that they, never would or could have advised the investment of Indian funds in a commercial speculation ...... Yet these funds are involved to the amount of three fourths of the Stock, - the Indian Interests are not represented in the direction. Most prominent men believed that ultimately, the affairs of the Company can thereafter be managed with an exclusive view to the interests of the Indians. It appears that they must have had concerns, though, since the Executive Council recommended an investigation by a "disinterested Engineer" (Ibid., p. 303).
It was decided that of 8000 shares, 2000 would each be held by Merritt, David Thompson of Indiana (on the Grand River), and the Six Nations. The other 25% would be sold to other interested parties. It would be one thing if the Six Nations got behind the project and it could clearly be shown that they were keen to invest in this plan, but this was not the case (MacDonald, p. 277). When Merritt and Thompson saw that the project was going sour, they were able to use their legislative influence to get the Government (Colborne) to buy out their interest in the GRNC, by using more of the Six Nations' trust fund. However, based on the testimony of Superintendent of Indian Affairs James Winniett and others in 1842, the, sum of 38,000 [pounds] has been invested upon the Authority of Sir John Colborne in the Grand River Navigation Company, in which they hold three fourths of the Stock. This investment, which was made by Lieutenant Governor, in the expectation that it would not only yield an early profit, but greatly enhance the value of the remainder of the Indian Lands, has proved very unfortunate. It has absorbed all their funds, for the last Seven years, leaving no surplus for distribution in money or provisions, as formerly ...... The Indians have frequently complained of the transaction and have petitioned the Government to take the Stock off their hands (Ibid., p. 311). Despite owning, ultimately, over 80% of the stock of the company, the Six Nations saw not one penny of a dividend for their investment (MacDonald, p. 278).
Chief John Brant and others complained directly to the Legislative Assembly about their worries that, their land would be flooded, their corn fields ruined and their fisheries destroyed (MacDonald, p. 277). Unfortunately Brant was unable to reverse any decisions due to his untimely death of cholera in 1834, and the project began the construction phase in that year. Dams, canals, locks and related projects were constructed, all on the cheap. While boat traffic did increase, and trade was expanded, and some locals such as sawmill owners prospered, the toll on the environment was catastrophic. Everything predicted by Brant occurred and eventually the infrastructure became unstable and in constant need of repairs - which the tolls could not adequately cover. So the GRNC languished, and in 1851 hammered out an agreement with the Town of Brantford to issue debentures to keep the entire project from collapsing. In 1854 the railway arrived in Brantford, thereby signing the death sentence for the GRNC, which was 35,000 [pounds] in debt. In 1861 the company was acquired by the Town of Brantford. While things looked grim for the Company, there were local men who had a particular interest in its success, and became officers a new company, the "Brantford and Hamilton Navigation Company Limited", which formed in 1872, and succeeded in obtaining grants from the Government to keep the project going. It was a futile enterprise at this time since the railways were capable of shipping all of the goods going down the Grand River more cost effectively and efficiently. So by the 1880s traffic ceased and the Company folded (MacDonald, pp. 278-9).
The facts are very clear here. The funds were invested without the full knowledge of the Six Nations of the risks involved, and the degree to which they were consulted is an open question, so the evidence appears to be rather obvious that due to mismanagement by their trustees and others, they were made to pay the price - yet with absolutely no say in the matter from beginning to end. Their protests appear to have fallen on deaf ears. In other words, the Six Nations were ripped off in this instance and have every right to be angry and demand compensation. The one aspect which, at least for my part, needs further investigation, is whether the Six Nations received any form of compensation prior to or after the formation of the successor company in 1872. If the answer is in the negative, then fairness and justice would demand that an equitable settlement be reached.
While the Statute of Limitations (see here) may legally come into play in this instance (the matter is 150 or so years in the past), this will probably not wash at Six Nations. There are also the intangibles, for which it would be difficult to address. The GRNC made a mess of the environment, and was a destructive force whose only benefits were commercial, with entrepeneurs benefiting the most. The local farmers, be they Natives, Whites, or mixed, all suffered the same fate. Law suits came from a variety of quarters. Quite by chance, while at Osgoode Hall to explore legal papers in an unrelated matter, I came across a petition from a son of one of the original Loyalist families who settled on the Grand River via the 1787 "Mohawk Deed". He complained "bitterly" of the "depredations" of the GRNC which, due to neglect, flooded his land every spring, ruining his crops on prime river flats land, and creating a mosquito infested swamp. There is no indication that he ever got one penny in compensation, nor did the GRNC rectify the problems.
All along the River the scar of the old canals, locks and dams still haunt the landscape. Although some see this as part of the history of the area (including some members of the "York Grand River Historical Society"), those of us whose ancestors only suffered from the presence of the GRNC, and in some cases were forced to leave their lands because they became virtually uninhabitable, see it all very differently. The good news is that today there are efforts, for example by the Kinsmen and the Rotary Club, to create public walkways along the old tow path and old Highway 54. The canal is filling in over time by the forces of nature and often farmers who find it inconvenient and still a cause of flooding (after all these years), and this deep scratch on the landscape is now a mere shadow of its former self in most places. The land is healing.
I hope that Six Nations are given true justice here. A full investigation needs to be completed with all sides at the negotiation table to enact what is fair and reasonable (of course this may be a sticky point).
It has just come to mind that perhaps the above injustices against Six Nations, and the more recent injustices in Haldimand County, can be resolved in one package.
I propose that the Provincial and County officials tally up the damages caused by the 2006 crisis in Caledonia. There is the market value of the land formerly known as the Douglas Creek Estates, and to the Natives as Kanonhstaton, to factor into the equation. Other questions will need to be answered such as, what were the costs of policing, including the staggering overtime required? What is the assessment of the damages such as the burning of the Stirling Street Bridge, the destruction of the Hydro towers, the 24 hour security to the Hydro sub- station for 5 (or so) years, the destruction of the pavement along Argyll Street, and other related costs? Then there are the properties that were bought out to compensate the families most directly impacted by the events of 2006. The list is quite lengthy, but the compensation likely due to the Six Nations by virtue of the GRNC depredations will also amount to a hefty bill. Why not call it square, with the Six Nations receiving Kanonhstaton to be included as Reserve land, and developed or not in any way that Six Nations sees fit.
Without any doubt nothing can ever be exactly equal. What about the intangibles such as the pain and suffering of those most directly in harms way in 2006? There is really no price (money) that can remove the nightmares - but the goal here is "peace and reconciliation". So Kanonhstaton as compensation for the lost revenues due to the unfortunate investment in the GRNC? Will this work? History provides me with an answer - but I would love to be proved wrong. Fair is fair.
DeYo.
It should be noted that the "Holmes Report" has been submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford. His recent rulings reflect the content of this document. One can be sure that the Report has made its way to the negotiators of both the Federal and Provincial Governments. Hence, any further attempts to make claims that are unsupported will run up against the brick wall of facts and the truth. Both the concepts "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" would likely apply here.
The other broad category of claims has to do with Six Nations Financial Justice (as per the above booklet). In my experience, the biggest festering sore for Six Nations has to do with the Grand River Navigation Company (GRNC), the investment of Six Nations monies by their three Government appointed trustees, and the possible misappropriation of Six Nations Trust Funds in relation to this Project. As an example of the pressing concerns relating to the GRNC, the following statement in the booklet published one year after the 2006 "Caledonia crisis", speaks volumes. In, Lynda Powless, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictorial History, Ohsweken, Turtle Island News, 2006, a list of grievances is presented. One of the conclusions arrived at by the author is that, The Crown was systematically inducing the sale of Six Nations lands without lawful surrenders and misappropriated land payments into the works of the Grand River Navigation Company (and other Government expenditures) against the constant protests of the Six Nations of the Grand River Indians (p. 32). The bold print here is that of the present author.
Frankly, a good case could be mounted that in fact the Government, and or the trustees appointed by the Government, had botched their fiduciary responsibility in a very serious manner.
First, the entire project was touted as likely to bring large dividends, in a works that was "close to home", so the trustees sank perhaps an inordinate amount of Six Nations trust funds into the scheme - which to the trustees, and those higher ranking in the Government, was bound to bring prosperity to the Grand River Valley.
I would be the first to argue that the scheme was ill conceived. I have canoed from the Elora Gorge to the mouth of the Grand River. In summer, we spend almost as much time out of the canoe walking it down the River (due to its shallowness) as we do actually paddling. The only respite from this grind are in the areas backed up by the dams in the Kitchener - Waterloo area, Brantford, Caledonia and Dunnville. So anyone truly familiar with the River surely had trepidations about a scheme to harness the River and make it navigable from the mouth at Port Maitland, to Brantford (by then a Town).
The scheme was kick started by the dam at Dunnville and the feeder to the Welland Canal. The River was navigable to Dunnville. In an age where it was believed that navigation was the necessary ingredient to prosperity, the era of dam building "caught on" in Canada and the United States. Not wanting to be left behind in some sort of backwash, some local entrepreneurs began public meetings on 15 December 1827. The focus shifted to Brantford, where those meeting at Lovejoy's Inn decided to commission a study of the feasibility of improving the navigation along the Grand River between Brantford and Dunnville. As a consequence, the Grand River Navigation Company came into being, and was incorporated in 1832. There was, however, a rather large problem. The Province was deep in debt, and there were few sources of ready cash at the time to fund mega projects of this nature. However a "solution" was found. It was William Hamilton Merritt, the founder of the Welland Canal, who suggested to Lieutenant Governor Sir John Colborne that Indian funds held in England (by then a fairly considerable fund of ready cash) could be used to finance the GRNC. It does seem that Colborne honestly believed that the Indians, then quite impoverished, would benefit from the opening up of the region, thereby increasing prosperity, and in turn increasing the value of Indian lands and so creating more wealth for the Six Nations. It all made such good sense, but it rested on a house of cards.
For detailed information about the GRNC, see Cheryl MacDonald (Ed.), Grand Heritage: A History of Dunnville and the townships of Canborough, Dunn, Moulton, Sherbrooke and South Cayuga, Dunnville, Dunnville District Heritage Association, 1992. The definitive study on this subject is, Bruce Hill, The Grand River Navigation Company, Brantford, Brant Historical Publications, 1994. Unfortunately it is long out of print, and largely unavailable.
By 1833 Colborne was willing to recommend that the Six Nations take, "stock to a very large amount nearly the whole of the Charter". Apparently he would use W.J. Kerr and Augustus Jones, both of whom had Indian wives, to induce the Indians to "sanction the undertaking" (Johnston, p. 298). Discussions in the Executive Council of Upper Canada in 1840 make it clear that there was absolutely no intention to fleece the Indians, rather the Executive Council actually sided with the Six Nations stating that they, never would or could have advised the investment of Indian funds in a commercial speculation ...... Yet these funds are involved to the amount of three fourths of the Stock, - the Indian Interests are not represented in the direction. Most prominent men believed that ultimately, the affairs of the Company can thereafter be managed with an exclusive view to the interests of the Indians. It appears that they must have had concerns, though, since the Executive Council recommended an investigation by a "disinterested Engineer" (Ibid., p. 303).
It was decided that of 8000 shares, 2000 would each be held by Merritt, David Thompson of Indiana (on the Grand River), and the Six Nations. The other 25% would be sold to other interested parties. It would be one thing if the Six Nations got behind the project and it could clearly be shown that they were keen to invest in this plan, but this was not the case (MacDonald, p. 277). When Merritt and Thompson saw that the project was going sour, they were able to use their legislative influence to get the Government (Colborne) to buy out their interest in the GRNC, by using more of the Six Nations' trust fund. However, based on the testimony of Superintendent of Indian Affairs James Winniett and others in 1842, the, sum of 38,000 [pounds] has been invested upon the Authority of Sir John Colborne in the Grand River Navigation Company, in which they hold three fourths of the Stock. This investment, which was made by Lieutenant Governor, in the expectation that it would not only yield an early profit, but greatly enhance the value of the remainder of the Indian Lands, has proved very unfortunate. It has absorbed all their funds, for the last Seven years, leaving no surplus for distribution in money or provisions, as formerly ...... The Indians have frequently complained of the transaction and have petitioned the Government to take the Stock off their hands (Ibid., p. 311). Despite owning, ultimately, over 80% of the stock of the company, the Six Nations saw not one penny of a dividend for their investment (MacDonald, p. 278).
Chief John Brant and others complained directly to the Legislative Assembly about their worries that, their land would be flooded, their corn fields ruined and their fisheries destroyed (MacDonald, p. 277). Unfortunately Brant was unable to reverse any decisions due to his untimely death of cholera in 1834, and the project began the construction phase in that year. Dams, canals, locks and related projects were constructed, all on the cheap. While boat traffic did increase, and trade was expanded, and some locals such as sawmill owners prospered, the toll on the environment was catastrophic. Everything predicted by Brant occurred and eventually the infrastructure became unstable and in constant need of repairs - which the tolls could not adequately cover. So the GRNC languished, and in 1851 hammered out an agreement with the Town of Brantford to issue debentures to keep the entire project from collapsing. In 1854 the railway arrived in Brantford, thereby signing the death sentence for the GRNC, which was 35,000 [pounds] in debt. In 1861 the company was acquired by the Town of Brantford. While things looked grim for the Company, there were local men who had a particular interest in its success, and became officers a new company, the "Brantford and Hamilton Navigation Company Limited", which formed in 1872, and succeeded in obtaining grants from the Government to keep the project going. It was a futile enterprise at this time since the railways were capable of shipping all of the goods going down the Grand River more cost effectively and efficiently. So by the 1880s traffic ceased and the Company folded (MacDonald, pp. 278-9).
The facts are very clear here. The funds were invested without the full knowledge of the Six Nations of the risks involved, and the degree to which they were consulted is an open question, so the evidence appears to be rather obvious that due to mismanagement by their trustees and others, they were made to pay the price - yet with absolutely no say in the matter from beginning to end. Their protests appear to have fallen on deaf ears. In other words, the Six Nations were ripped off in this instance and have every right to be angry and demand compensation. The one aspect which, at least for my part, needs further investigation, is whether the Six Nations received any form of compensation prior to or after the formation of the successor company in 1872. If the answer is in the negative, then fairness and justice would demand that an equitable settlement be reached.
While the Statute of Limitations (see here) may legally come into play in this instance (the matter is 150 or so years in the past), this will probably not wash at Six Nations. There are also the intangibles, for which it would be difficult to address. The GRNC made a mess of the environment, and was a destructive force whose only benefits were commercial, with entrepeneurs benefiting the most. The local farmers, be they Natives, Whites, or mixed, all suffered the same fate. Law suits came from a variety of quarters. Quite by chance, while at Osgoode Hall to explore legal papers in an unrelated matter, I came across a petition from a son of one of the original Loyalist families who settled on the Grand River via the 1787 "Mohawk Deed". He complained "bitterly" of the "depredations" of the GRNC which, due to neglect, flooded his land every spring, ruining his crops on prime river flats land, and creating a mosquito infested swamp. There is no indication that he ever got one penny in compensation, nor did the GRNC rectify the problems.
All along the River the scar of the old canals, locks and dams still haunt the landscape. Although some see this as part of the history of the area (including some members of the "York Grand River Historical Society"), those of us whose ancestors only suffered from the presence of the GRNC, and in some cases were forced to leave their lands because they became virtually uninhabitable, see it all very differently. The good news is that today there are efforts, for example by the Kinsmen and the Rotary Club, to create public walkways along the old tow path and old Highway 54. The canal is filling in over time by the forces of nature and often farmers who find it inconvenient and still a cause of flooding (after all these years), and this deep scratch on the landscape is now a mere shadow of its former self in most places. The land is healing.
I hope that Six Nations are given true justice here. A full investigation needs to be completed with all sides at the negotiation table to enact what is fair and reasonable (of course this may be a sticky point).
It has just come to mind that perhaps the above injustices against Six Nations, and the more recent injustices in Haldimand County, can be resolved in one package.
I propose that the Provincial and County officials tally up the damages caused by the 2006 crisis in Caledonia. There is the market value of the land formerly known as the Douglas Creek Estates, and to the Natives as Kanonhstaton, to factor into the equation. Other questions will need to be answered such as, what were the costs of policing, including the staggering overtime required? What is the assessment of the damages such as the burning of the Stirling Street Bridge, the destruction of the Hydro towers, the 24 hour security to the Hydro sub- station for 5 (or so) years, the destruction of the pavement along Argyll Street, and other related costs? Then there are the properties that were bought out to compensate the families most directly impacted by the events of 2006. The list is quite lengthy, but the compensation likely due to the Six Nations by virtue of the GRNC depredations will also amount to a hefty bill. Why not call it square, with the Six Nations receiving Kanonhstaton to be included as Reserve land, and developed or not in any way that Six Nations sees fit.
Without any doubt nothing can ever be exactly equal. What about the intangibles such as the pain and suffering of those most directly in harms way in 2006? There is really no price (money) that can remove the nightmares - but the goal here is "peace and reconciliation". So Kanonhstaton as compensation for the lost revenues due to the unfortunate investment in the GRNC? Will this work? History provides me with an answer - but I would love to be proved wrong. Fair is fair.
DeYo.
Saturday, 9 November 2013
The Mohawk Warriors and the Mohawk Workers at Six Nations
Many believe that the following two groups play a key role in promulgating the agenda of the Six Nations. One wonders if the facts suggest otherwise, with each asserting their own agendas which are largely self serving. It is a debatable point. Neither appear to have a working relationship with the other; and while having names that sound roughly similar, their goals bear little relationship to one another.
The Mohawk Warriors group tend to show up at Six Nations when matters involving occupations come to some sort of crisis point, or their grandstanding (such as at the the "parade" with radical White supporters in the spring of 2012) would give texture to an event. They have a stated mandate in defence and security. Specifically they state that, their purpose is to defend and protect the citizenry and territory of the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. The gnarly flag of the "Warriors" is, however, seen everywhere on the Reserve, or protest sites where threat and intimidation can be suggested just by its mere presence. It is as welcome in local off - Reserve communities as a Hell's Angels patch to the citizenry of Niagara Falls. A history of the flag is given here.
The Mohawk Warrior group tend to be centred at the Eastern Mohawk Reserves such as Akwesasne and Kanesetake (Oka), but are willing to travel on short notice. The flags can be purchased locally, and one does not know who is the "true" MW without a programme. A sense of their widespread militancy can be seen in the following article here. They also have a strong presence at Kanawaki, as the following will show here. Many hope that the "Warriors" do not set up a chapter at Six Nations and add to the already complex stew.
The Mohawk Workers, are a group local to Six Nations, not to be confused with the "Mohawk workers", generally from Kanawaki, who are employed in dangerous "high iron" building projects, and are nicknamed, "skywalkers". The Mohawk Workers at Six Nations seem to have first come to the attention of the public when, in 2007, they took over the Kanata Village Tourist Centre across the road from the landfill in Brantford. The Centre was slated to be turned over to De dwa da dehs neye's Aboriginal Health Centre. The two best known figures are Bill Squire, and Jason Bowman (a non-Native leftist group leader who provides "legal advice"). Since then they have been a bone of contention for the City of Brantford, and threats and action by the latter to turn off their utilities with over $50,000 in unpaid bills outstanding - see here. One of the best descriptions of the genesis of the group that I can find can be seen here. The Kanata Iroquois Village Centre is shown below.
They are now moving ahead with various land deals, initially the return of the Burtch lands, and now the property on Erie Avenue in Brantford, on their own authority (e.g., see Turtle Island News, 23 October 2013, p. 2). A U-Tube video of this confrontation is found here. Their expanding role from Kanata occupiers, to activists intent of directing the return of the Burtch Tract, to a "force" at Six Nations can be found in this video and the text that goes with it here.
At least at the beginning, the Mohawk Workers did not recognise the authority of either the Elected or Hereditary Councils, maintaining that the Haldimand Tract was given to the Mohawks, and the Mohawk should have the say in matters pertaining to land reclamation. A website devoted to the Mohawk Workers (and a lot of radical rants) can be found here.
It appears that the Mohawk Workers may have been responsible for the recent visit to Canada by the "Special Rapporteur" to the United Nations, James Anaya. His goal was to "investigate Canada's treatment of the indigineous people of this country". See here.
However, things continue to get more complicated when for example, The Men's Fire, made up primarily of Mohawks, were upset at another Mohawk group, the Mohawk Workers, was securing a deal without their involvement (Two Row Times, November 6th, 2013, p. 3). A recent statement by Bill Squire gives a flavour of what is on their agenda 6 years after the take over of Kanata Village. He says that the Mohawk Workers, maintain, a recognition of the underlying title the Mohawk Nations have on the land through the Haldimand Deed, which they believe belongs to the Mohawks first and Six Nations at large by way of the Mohawks (Two Row Times, November 6th 2013, p. 7). Some idea of their stated views and role, as articulated by Bill Squire, can be found here and here. For info on the "legal advisor", "spokesman" and leftist activist, Jason Bowman see here and here.
Whether the group will survive, or implode from within, remains to be seen.
DeYo.
The Mohawk Warriors group tend to show up at Six Nations when matters involving occupations come to some sort of crisis point, or their grandstanding (such as at the the "parade" with radical White supporters in the spring of 2012) would give texture to an event. They have a stated mandate in defence and security. Specifically they state that, their purpose is to defend and protect the citizenry and territory of the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. The gnarly flag of the "Warriors" is, however, seen everywhere on the Reserve, or protest sites where threat and intimidation can be suggested just by its mere presence. It is as welcome in local off - Reserve communities as a Hell's Angels patch to the citizenry of Niagara Falls. A history of the flag is given here.
The Mohawk Warrior group tend to be centred at the Eastern Mohawk Reserves such as Akwesasne and Kanesetake (Oka), but are willing to travel on short notice. The flags can be purchased locally, and one does not know who is the "true" MW without a programme. A sense of their widespread militancy can be seen in the following article here. They also have a strong presence at Kanawaki, as the following will show here. Many hope that the "Warriors" do not set up a chapter at Six Nations and add to the already complex stew.
The Mohawk Workers, are a group local to Six Nations, not to be confused with the "Mohawk workers", generally from Kanawaki, who are employed in dangerous "high iron" building projects, and are nicknamed, "skywalkers". The Mohawk Workers at Six Nations seem to have first come to the attention of the public when, in 2007, they took over the Kanata Village Tourist Centre across the road from the landfill in Brantford. The Centre was slated to be turned over to De dwa da dehs neye's Aboriginal Health Centre. The two best known figures are Bill Squire, and Jason Bowman (a non-Native leftist group leader who provides "legal advice"). Since then they have been a bone of contention for the City of Brantford, and threats and action by the latter to turn off their utilities with over $50,000 in unpaid bills outstanding - see here. One of the best descriptions of the genesis of the group that I can find can be seen here. The Kanata Iroquois Village Centre is shown below.
They are now moving ahead with various land deals, initially the return of the Burtch lands, and now the property on Erie Avenue in Brantford, on their own authority (e.g., see Turtle Island News, 23 October 2013, p. 2). A U-Tube video of this confrontation is found here. Their expanding role from Kanata occupiers, to activists intent of directing the return of the Burtch Tract, to a "force" at Six Nations can be found in this video and the text that goes with it here.
At least at the beginning, the Mohawk Workers did not recognise the authority of either the Elected or Hereditary Councils, maintaining that the Haldimand Tract was given to the Mohawks, and the Mohawk should have the say in matters pertaining to land reclamation. A website devoted to the Mohawk Workers (and a lot of radical rants) can be found here.
It appears that the Mohawk Workers may have been responsible for the recent visit to Canada by the "Special Rapporteur" to the United Nations, James Anaya. His goal was to "investigate Canada's treatment of the indigineous people of this country". See here.
However, things continue to get more complicated when for example, The Men's Fire, made up primarily of Mohawks, were upset at another Mohawk group, the Mohawk Workers, was securing a deal without their involvement (Two Row Times, November 6th, 2013, p. 3). A recent statement by Bill Squire gives a flavour of what is on their agenda 6 years after the take over of Kanata Village. He says that the Mohawk Workers, maintain, a recognition of the underlying title the Mohawk Nations have on the land through the Haldimand Deed, which they believe belongs to the Mohawks first and Six Nations at large by way of the Mohawks (Two Row Times, November 6th 2013, p. 7). Some idea of their stated views and role, as articulated by Bill Squire, can be found here and here. For info on the "legal advisor", "spokesman" and leftist activist, Jason Bowman see here and here.
Whether the group will survive, or implode from within, remains to be seen.
DeYo.
Friday, 8 November 2013
Surrenders of Land by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council from 1841 to 1850
Undoubtedly, if one were only to go to the published set of, Canada: Indian Treaties and Surrenders, 1680 to 1890, Volumes I and II, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1891, one would be left with significant questions about the legitimacy of some of the land transactions upon which so much hinges in terms of settling outstanding Six Nations land claims. Clearly it would be worthwhile for someone other than the negotiating terms for Six Nations and the Federal Government to sift through everything and see what conclusions can be arrived at by a third party, independent of the other two. This has actually been done in the reports of Holmes (2009), which is the focus of most of what is written below, and Horsnell (2010) noted in previous blog posts. Over a period of over 30 years, I have examined not only the specifically relevant documents, but also related records, and the diaries and letters of Indian Department officials such as James Winniett and David Thorburn, which provide an indication as to whether they were working in the best interests of the Six Nations, or rather to enrich themselves, or were little more than toadies or "yes men" in supporting the position of the Lieutenant Governor or other Crown agent. I am entirely satisfied that Winniett and Thorburn were diligently working in the best interests of the Six Nations.
The Surrender of 1841: This document begins with a preamble from the Superintendent for Indian Affairs in Canada, Samuel P. Jarvis. The first problem here is that he is associated with investing trust funds in the very controversial Grand River Navigation Company. The second is that due to allegations of misappropriation of funds, he "retired in disgrace" - as shown here. Many at Six Nations, however, maintain that he "was suspended from office" - as shown here. Be that as it may, it would be difficult to show that the deed that followed is compromised or tainted in some way. Jarvis was following the explicit orders of the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. The surrender was signed by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council, and was overseen by Commissioner David Thorburn, who has an unblemished record in his dealings with the Six Nations. I have read all of Thorburns diaries (a stack of very small books) in which he recorded every transaction, and every possible detail of the work he was doing. He was the consumate civil servant who believed that it was just and proper that he play his role to the best of his ability in ensuring that the Six Nations were provided with justice and compassion. Ultimately the decision made by the Six Nations Chiefs was theirs and theirs alone. Jarvis was essentially a go between. The Six Nations would be given advice by the local Indian Department officials, but if the facts didn't add up, some of the Chiefs (e.g., John "Smoke" Johnson) were far too shrewd to be duped in this way.
The preamble and document itself are long, too long to be included except in excerpt form. For the full set, please see either Johnston (pp. 187-92), or ITS (Vol. 1, pp. 119-23). First Jarvis makes it clear that he is relaying a message from the Lieutenant Governor, who had recently received a delegation of Six Nations Chiefs. Cutting to the chase, Jarvis said that the problem is largely the occupation of Six Nations lands, "by white people without authority". The Lieutenant Governor not only blames the squatters, but also "the interference of the Indians themselves, continuously". In the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor the only feasible solution is if the Six Nations, "surrendered into the hands of the Government the whole tract, with the exception of such part of it that may chose to occupy as a concentrated body, so that the same may be disposed of by the Government". He recommended that the Six Nations choose the part that would best suit their needs, and include 100 to 200 acres of land for each head of family or single man. The residue would be disposed of, "for the exclusive benefit of the Indians".
The bottom line is that in complete and utter frustration, the deputation of Six Nations asked for advice from the Lieutenant Governor, and this was the recommendation, which if implemented would also make it easier to expel intruders.
Jarvis found it necessary to further explain details of the above plan, there being some worries on the part of the Chiefs, and so he met with the Chiefs on 15 January 1841 in Seneca. He told them that, "the income of the Six Nations can be immediately increased by a sum varying from 3,000 to 5,000 [pounds] per annum", and the plan implemented to, relieve the present embarrassed state of their affairs". What he meant was that the problems stemmed from the Indians having invited and introduced these white intruders onto their lands in the first place, and some had collected large sums for the sale of their own property. The Government refused to forcibly remove these white men because there are as many as there are Six Nations (about 2000), and many were put upon the lands with the approval of the Indians. Jarvis further stated, that the proposed plan does not require those Six Nations living on a farm presently in their occupation to remove, only if and when he chooses to do so. In addition to the presently owned farms, the recommendation is to include a further 20,000 acres to be reserved for their use.
Apparently the "Chiefs and Warriors of the Six Nations Indians upon the Grand River assembled at Onondaga Council House" saw the wisdom in this course of action as, on 18 January 1841, they agreed to the proposal. However they stated that they wished to reserve, "that tract called the Johnson Settlement, unless what is available to be sold as town lots in the immediate neighbourhood of the Town of Brantford". The document was signed by two Mohawks and one representative of each of the other Five Nations, "being deputed by the said Six Nations in full Council".
That sounds pretty final. There were still some i's to dot, and t's to cross, but everything was finalised in the report of Lord Elgin, dated 1850.
As noted in a previous blog, the Indian Department sent out teams of representatives to inquire into the history of ownership of each lot of land in each Township in the Haldimand Tract where Six Nations still held land. The inspectors added sketches of the "improvements" to each lot, and each Township was fully surveyed. Then the unpleasant task of removing the squatters from the lands reserved for the Six Nations began. If the white owner could show that they had made improvements, these were purchased by the Indian Department, and an eviction notice only was placed on the property if the occupier failed to comply.
In the end, it seems that the Six Nations obtained the only viable solution to the problems they were facing. By virtue of the Government's decisions, the Six Nations still remain together as a community. In my opinion, had the Government not acted in this manner the Six Nations would have scattered. Many of their people already had gone, going to locations in the Ohio country where the author has found people seen in Six Nations records, who are documented as living there. Examples found quite by chance include Chief Joseph Dequania of the Senecas, Peter Pork and John Slink of the Cayugas, and John Froman of the Mohawk.
Many Six Nations did in fact remain on their lands for varying periods of time. Generally between 1851 and 1871, as reflected in the Census of Ontario, the majority had moved from lands as far as South Cayuga (e.g., Curley), North Cayuga (e.g., Latham), Oneida (e,g, Styres, Beaver, Thom), and Brantford (e.g., Powless) to new homes on the consolidated Reserve. I have documents relating to the children of a member of the Delawares, Hannah (nee Thom) Dochstader, showing that if a family did not move by about 1871, even if in this case they only lived a few miles to the south at Mt. Healey, they were struck from the Pay List - so there was an incentive to sell to a White person and join their kin on the consolidated Reserve.
Ultimately, some Six Nations became disatisfied with the terms of the Surrender, and a consensus was reached that it needed to be amended. Here is where a problem surfaces for some Six Nations today. Some are not aware that the original Surrender of 1841 was little more than a first pitch in a long drawn out game that lasted until 1848. The only way to find out the validity of the land claims of today is to go beyond 1841, and wade into the "heavy reading" of Council Minutes in the key interval where leading up to Lord Elgin's Report of 1850.
Sundry Deeds and Documents Relating to the Decisions of the Chiefs in Council, 1843 to 1850: By the time of the Caledonia "Reclamation", it had become clear that the parties (Government and Six Nations) held differing views as to what was surrendered, and when (if at all). The Six Nations became more vocal in asserting that their people had never alienated their rights to the Haldimand Tract, and specifically not the lands in and around Brantford. This position may have set in motion a plan by the City of Brantford, concerned about possible stoppages to development that would occur there, if the Caledonia occupation spread further. The City at some point decided to employ a team to research all available documents that pertained to the matters of land surrenders since the General Surrender of 1841 noted above. As a result, Joan Holmes & Associates set to the task of finding relevant records in the National Archives (where the RG10 Indian Affairs records are housed), and presenting a report on the findings of this study. The major findings of the "Holmes Report", can be seen online here. I am guessing that this may have been a privately commissioned document not for "public consumption". Their website indicates that most of the publications they produce are confidential. Hence, for unknown reasons, it is possible that someone took it upon themselves to upload the report to the Internet. Joan Holmes & Associates is a large, Ottawa - based, firm specialising in conducting research pertaining to First Nations, matters. Her team consists of over 20 individuals, with varied backgrounds, and offers comprehensive services. See their website here.
As someone who has researched these same files and many others at the National Archives, it is my opinion that the report by Joan Holmes includes data that is valid and pertains directly to the land claims now before the Courts.
First I will present the conclusion of Holmes, followed by excerpts from the relevant documents. All of these records are provided with suitable RG10 reference tags which would allow anyone at large to verify each and every one of them, should there be a wish to contest any for one reason or another.
The conclusion: The Elgin Proclamation of 1850, which extended the provisions of An Act for protection of Indians in Upper Canada from imposition, and the property occupied or enjoyed by them from trespass and injury to Indian lands in Upper Canada, indicated that the land reserved to the Six Nations of the Grand River was limited to land in the Townships of Tuscarora, Oneida, and Onondaga and a 200 acre block in Eagle's Nest, Brantford Township. Similarly, the report of the Commissioner appointed to investigate Indian Affairs, tabled in 1858, showed that the lands reserved for the Six Nations of the Grand River did not include any land in the Township of Brantford with the exception of the 200-acre block. These 1850 and 1858 documents indicate that all of the other land in the Haldimand tract, which would have included the Johnson Settlement, Eagle's Nest and Oxbow tracts, had been surrendered by the Six Nations prior to 1850 (p. 9).
The events of the following years reflect the shifting tides of opinion of the Chiefs, basically changing their minds and reversing or altering previous decisions.
1841: Holmes provides information equivalent to what the present author has included above. 18 January 1841 can be considered as the key date initiating the series of amendments and culminating in a full Surrender on 18 December 1844 for all but the Burtch Tract lands and any outliers, all of which were fully addressed by 1848 and capped off by the Land Inspection Returns and Township surveys of 1845, and Lord Elgin's Report of 1850.
1843: Two years after making the original surrender of land, the Chiefs, upon discussion and reflection, decided that they would like to make an amendment to the original provisions. As a result, the Committee of the Executive Council noted that the original reservation was to have consisted of 20,000 acres and that the petitioners were now asking for over 55,000 acres composed of lands on the south side of the Grand River, along with the Oxbow tract (1,200 acres), Eagle's Nest (1,800 acres), the Martin tract (1,500 acres), the Johnson settlement (7,000 acres), and a church lot in Tuscarora. Nearly all the lands in the Oxbow, Eagle's Nest, Martin and Johnson settlements were said to be in the possession of White settlers under titles given by individual Indians (p. 10).
1844: Here the Chiefs, again after many days of consultation, From this answer they unanimously recede and therefore agree that the same be sold. The chiefs further desire that there be reserved at or near the Mohawk School two Hundred acres of land for the use of the said school so that the Scholars may then be Ensured agricultural pursuits. [Located in the Eagle's Nest, Brantford Township] ....... They also desire that the Indian cleared lands on the north side may be exchanged for those on the south side thus recompensing the possessors of improvements from Burtch's to Lot No. 72 on the River. [Located along the Grand River below the Oxbow and adjacent to the boundary between Brantford and Tuscarora]. Holmes added the brackets in accompanying information. The date of the Council meeting was 18 December 1844 - it should be considered as the correct date of the Surrender of all lands outside the boundary of the present day Six Nations Reserve.
Furthermore, The Six Nations are desirous that 3,600 acres of land may also be reserved for the Tuscarora Tribe on the north side of the River in the Township of Onondaga in and around the Church and mission establishment of the New England Companies provided that such Reserve may not be prejudicial to their reserve on the south side the River as here on desired (p. 12).
The signatures of 45 Chiefs are appended to the above documents, all being certified as eligible signators by Thorburn. In the accompanying Minutes of the meeting of the Chiefs in Council, 47 signatures are attached. Five days later, in the presence of David Thorburn and James Winniet, 45 Chiefs were present and affixed their signatures to the Minutes taken at that time. Here Holmes concluded that, It is my opinion that the report of Thorbum, signed by the chiefs and the minute of the two Council meetings show that the Council was properly called, time was given for consultation and deliberation, an interpreter was used and the document carefully reviewed before signing. In summary, The document indicates that the Six Nation Chiefs in Council agree to have the Township of Tuscarora set aside as their reserve, along with a reservation of 200 acres at or near the "Mohawk School", and a reservation of 3,600 aces in Onondaga Township on the north side of the Grand River for the Tuscaroras. In addition they wanted to retain a range of lots from Burtch's Lot to Lot 72 (p. 14). The Chiefs had, unanimously recede and therefore agree that the same be sold is the terminology found in the Council Minutes. Also included are procedural details such as the reading paragraph by paragraph of each surrender or decision by the interpreter, Jacob Martin, who functioned in this capacity as early as the 1830s and appears to have been well respected and trusted by all sides.
1845: The primary outstanding matter was the Burtch Tract. According to the Government, The Governor General regrets to learn that the chiefs still desire to have induded in their proposed Reserve the land in the Township of Brantford between Burchs [sic] Landing and the lot 72 on the
River in Tuscarora upon which there are so many settlers the value of whose improvements will amount to a considerable sum and whose removal if it should be practicable which is at present
doubtful cannot be effected without causing very general dissatisfaction amongst them and a heavy expense upon the funds of the Tribe (p. 15).
Sixty chiefs were present at a Council meeting of April 8, 1845. At that time they indicated that they had deliberated extensively and receded from their former position regarding the 3,600 acres on the north side in Onondaga Township except for a tier of river lots beginning at lot 45 and running to their council house which was on Lot 60 or 61 (p. 16).
Thorburn reported that, Your Excellency's Petitioners were induced to surrender for sale all their land on the South side of the Grand River situated between the Bridge at the village of Caledonia and the Townships of Dunn; and also tracts of their land of considerable extent in Martin's settlement, the Ox-bow, the Eagles' nest and Johnson's Settlement (p. 19).
Furthermore, another description described the lands to be reserved as of 1846,
If there is any fuzziness in the understanding of what the Chiefs meant in relation to Oneida Township, this can be addressed by referring to the Land Inspection Returns which I discussed in length in a previous blog, where the survey and descriptions show that the only lands reserved here were in the tract West of the Plank Road, where the Reserve exists today. All other lands, except those occupied by individual Indians, were surveyed and Crown grants given to purchasers.
1848: The lands at the Burtch Tract still remained something of a thorn for the Chiefs. Finally though, the Chiefs relented to the argument that it was in their best interests to grant the Burtch Tract, primarily because the compensation of the tenants then living on the land would seriously compromise the funds of the Six Nations. So, At the Council meeting of March 8, at which 31 chiefs were present, Commissioner David Thorbum relayed a message stating that the "governor general ... is pleased to accede to the request for a deed confirming the Reserve to the Six Nations not including the Burtch tract (p. 20).
Thus, all were in agreement with, His Lordship in saying they might have 55,000 acres; evidently meant if such could be had in conformity with the request of the Council, that their settlements should be entirely Indian and compact. This has been done as far as existing circumstances at the time would permit & a compact settlement could only be given from the west side of the tier of Lots on the Plank road in Oneida stretching westward to the Line separating the townships of Tuscarora from the Burtch tract in Brantford ..... (p. 21).
As to Caledonia: Hence the intention was to reserve only those lots of land in Oneida from the west side of the tier of lots behind the Plank Road. This does not include the lots on the Plank Road, only those beyond the six lot deep tier ending at the present day Reserve in Oneida. I am not sure how much more clear the records have to be to allow Six Nations to understand that the Douglas Creek Estates property was ceded in 1841, and further described in various documents (be they the above or the Land Inspection Returns and survey records or what is on title in the Haldimand County Land Records Office).
As to the Burtch Tract: Since the Burtch Tract is also such a contentious matter at present, it is noteworthy that again, on March 25 [1848] they [Six Nations Chiefs in Council] agreed to the sale of land in the Burtch Tract, Having.thus surrendered to Her Majesty for sale the Burtch tract of land in the manner set forth the council desire that no further surrender of any portion of their Land take place within the declared general Reservation in Oneida Tuscarora and Onondaga tract that the same be confirmed by Deed to them and their posterity for ever (p. 22).
1850: The final description of the entirety of the reserved lands is found in proclamation of the Governor General for Upper Canada, Lord Elgin's Proclamation of 1850 (Statute of the Province of Canada, 13 & 14 Vict. Cap 74) for protection of Indians in Upper Canada from imposition, and the properly occupied or enjoyed by them from trespass and injury, which had been assented to in August 1850. Elgin's proclamation specifically extended the protection of Sections 10, 11 and 12 to Indian lands in Upper Canada including the following lands in the Haldimand Tract:
... certain tract or parcel of land, situate in the Township of ONEIDA in the County of Haldimand ... comprising lots numbers one, two, three, four, five and six in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth concessions respectively of Oneida .. and also, River lots numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve in the same Township. ... the whole of the Township of TUSCARORA .. Also, to that certain parcel of Land containing Two Hundred Acres more or less, adjacent to the Mohawk Church, and known as LOT NUMBER FIVE, in the Eagle's Nest, in the Township of BRANTFORD, in the said county of Wentworth. ... Township of ONONDAGA ... east of Fairchild's Creek, known as River Lots numbers forty-five, forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight,
forty-nine, fifty, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fifty-five, fifty- six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, sixty, sixty-one in the third Concession, of the same Township (pp. 22-3). A sketch accompanies the above description. I have not seen the original documents here. The original with various attachments including a map, is the foundation of the Indian Land Registry system and thus Federal Government authorities could presumably produce this document, and preferably publish it so there will be no questions left hanging about the series of surrenders during the 1840s.
Conclusion of Holmes: It is my opinion that the historical documents cited above dating from the 1840s, indicate that the Six Nations Chiefs in Council expressed their intention to reserve particular lands for their exclusive use and surrendered the remained for sale. By February 1846, they had agreed to allow the sale of lands in the Martin's and Johnson Settlements, Oxbow tracts, and Eagle's Nest, with the exception of a 200-acre block variously described as being in the vicinity of the Mohawk mission or school. In 1848 they finally agreed to the sale of the Burtch Tract. The Elgin Proclamation of 1850 appears to accurately describe the lands that the Six Nations Chiefs in Council had resolved to reserve for their exclusive use as of 1850. The lands not intended for reservation were to be sold (p. 25).
In my opinion, there is absolutely no wiggle room. The above description is the extent of the reserved land as negotiated by the Six Nations and representatives of the Government. This is entirely supported by the attached list of documents. The documents have been assembled in a very thorough and comprehensive report by Holmes who has sorted through the documents to arrive at what can be the only conclusion based on factual evidence. As Hornell has stated, since Lord Elgin's report was done with the approval of Queen Victoria (the Crown), or it would not have been submitted at all, then the Crown was exercising its legal mandate, not disputed by Six Nations, and so the terms of the Proclamation reflected the agreement of all parties (p. 11). Hence the giving of a Crown deed in 1848 for the parcel upon which the Douglas Creek Estates is situated, and registering it on title in the Land Registry Office, is entirely consistent with all of the evidence. The property indeed belonged to Henco Industries Ltd. until purchased by the Provincial Government.
It seems evident that the following land claims, based on the above evidence, have no support in fact: Claim 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 21 as described in the booklet of the "Six Nations Lands & Resources" branch of the Six Nations Council. See here for this document. Some of the other claims, relating to land and resources, deserve a closer inspection. I will explore each of these in later blog postings.
Any changes since the date of 1850 must be considered, but this rules out most of the present land claims being asserted by Six Nations. Were it not for the efforts of people such as Holmes, willing to sift through mountains of old documents contained within the vast collections of the Indian Affairs Papers, we would forever be faced with those who would assert their beliefs as reality and the truth would be sacrificed. The work is unassailable and the Six Nations will eventually have to face facts.
DeYo.
The Surrender of 1841: This document begins with a preamble from the Superintendent for Indian Affairs in Canada, Samuel P. Jarvis. The first problem here is that he is associated with investing trust funds in the very controversial Grand River Navigation Company. The second is that due to allegations of misappropriation of funds, he "retired in disgrace" - as shown here. Many at Six Nations, however, maintain that he "was suspended from office" - as shown here. Be that as it may, it would be difficult to show that the deed that followed is compromised or tainted in some way. Jarvis was following the explicit orders of the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. The surrender was signed by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council, and was overseen by Commissioner David Thorburn, who has an unblemished record in his dealings with the Six Nations. I have read all of Thorburns diaries (a stack of very small books) in which he recorded every transaction, and every possible detail of the work he was doing. He was the consumate civil servant who believed that it was just and proper that he play his role to the best of his ability in ensuring that the Six Nations were provided with justice and compassion. Ultimately the decision made by the Six Nations Chiefs was theirs and theirs alone. Jarvis was essentially a go between. The Six Nations would be given advice by the local Indian Department officials, but if the facts didn't add up, some of the Chiefs (e.g., John "Smoke" Johnson) were far too shrewd to be duped in this way.
The preamble and document itself are long, too long to be included except in excerpt form. For the full set, please see either Johnston (pp. 187-92), or ITS (Vol. 1, pp. 119-23). First Jarvis makes it clear that he is relaying a message from the Lieutenant Governor, who had recently received a delegation of Six Nations Chiefs. Cutting to the chase, Jarvis said that the problem is largely the occupation of Six Nations lands, "by white people without authority". The Lieutenant Governor not only blames the squatters, but also "the interference of the Indians themselves, continuously". In the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor the only feasible solution is if the Six Nations, "surrendered into the hands of the Government the whole tract, with the exception of such part of it that may chose to occupy as a concentrated body, so that the same may be disposed of by the Government". He recommended that the Six Nations choose the part that would best suit their needs, and include 100 to 200 acres of land for each head of family or single man. The residue would be disposed of, "for the exclusive benefit of the Indians".
The bottom line is that in complete and utter frustration, the deputation of Six Nations asked for advice from the Lieutenant Governor, and this was the recommendation, which if implemented would also make it easier to expel intruders.
Jarvis found it necessary to further explain details of the above plan, there being some worries on the part of the Chiefs, and so he met with the Chiefs on 15 January 1841 in Seneca. He told them that, "the income of the Six Nations can be immediately increased by a sum varying from 3,000 to 5,000 [pounds] per annum", and the plan implemented to, relieve the present embarrassed state of their affairs". What he meant was that the problems stemmed from the Indians having invited and introduced these white intruders onto their lands in the first place, and some had collected large sums for the sale of their own property. The Government refused to forcibly remove these white men because there are as many as there are Six Nations (about 2000), and many were put upon the lands with the approval of the Indians. Jarvis further stated, that the proposed plan does not require those Six Nations living on a farm presently in their occupation to remove, only if and when he chooses to do so. In addition to the presently owned farms, the recommendation is to include a further 20,000 acres to be reserved for their use.
Apparently the "Chiefs and Warriors of the Six Nations Indians upon the Grand River assembled at Onondaga Council House" saw the wisdom in this course of action as, on 18 January 1841, they agreed to the proposal. However they stated that they wished to reserve, "that tract called the Johnson Settlement, unless what is available to be sold as town lots in the immediate neighbourhood of the Town of Brantford". The document was signed by two Mohawks and one representative of each of the other Five Nations, "being deputed by the said Six Nations in full Council".
That sounds pretty final. There were still some i's to dot, and t's to cross, but everything was finalised in the report of Lord Elgin, dated 1850.
As noted in a previous blog, the Indian Department sent out teams of representatives to inquire into the history of ownership of each lot of land in each Township in the Haldimand Tract where Six Nations still held land. The inspectors added sketches of the "improvements" to each lot, and each Township was fully surveyed. Then the unpleasant task of removing the squatters from the lands reserved for the Six Nations began. If the white owner could show that they had made improvements, these were purchased by the Indian Department, and an eviction notice only was placed on the property if the occupier failed to comply.
In the end, it seems that the Six Nations obtained the only viable solution to the problems they were facing. By virtue of the Government's decisions, the Six Nations still remain together as a community. In my opinion, had the Government not acted in this manner the Six Nations would have scattered. Many of their people already had gone, going to locations in the Ohio country where the author has found people seen in Six Nations records, who are documented as living there. Examples found quite by chance include Chief Joseph Dequania of the Senecas, Peter Pork and John Slink of the Cayugas, and John Froman of the Mohawk.
Many Six Nations did in fact remain on their lands for varying periods of time. Generally between 1851 and 1871, as reflected in the Census of Ontario, the majority had moved from lands as far as South Cayuga (e.g., Curley), North Cayuga (e.g., Latham), Oneida (e,g, Styres, Beaver, Thom), and Brantford (e.g., Powless) to new homes on the consolidated Reserve. I have documents relating to the children of a member of the Delawares, Hannah (nee Thom) Dochstader, showing that if a family did not move by about 1871, even if in this case they only lived a few miles to the south at Mt. Healey, they were struck from the Pay List - so there was an incentive to sell to a White person and join their kin on the consolidated Reserve.
Ultimately, some Six Nations became disatisfied with the terms of the Surrender, and a consensus was reached that it needed to be amended. Here is where a problem surfaces for some Six Nations today. Some are not aware that the original Surrender of 1841 was little more than a first pitch in a long drawn out game that lasted until 1848. The only way to find out the validity of the land claims of today is to go beyond 1841, and wade into the "heavy reading" of Council Minutes in the key interval where leading up to Lord Elgin's Report of 1850.
Sundry Deeds and Documents Relating to the Decisions of the Chiefs in Council, 1843 to 1850: By the time of the Caledonia "Reclamation", it had become clear that the parties (Government and Six Nations) held differing views as to what was surrendered, and when (if at all). The Six Nations became more vocal in asserting that their people had never alienated their rights to the Haldimand Tract, and specifically not the lands in and around Brantford. This position may have set in motion a plan by the City of Brantford, concerned about possible stoppages to development that would occur there, if the Caledonia occupation spread further. The City at some point decided to employ a team to research all available documents that pertained to the matters of land surrenders since the General Surrender of 1841 noted above. As a result, Joan Holmes & Associates set to the task of finding relevant records in the National Archives (where the RG10 Indian Affairs records are housed), and presenting a report on the findings of this study. The major findings of the "Holmes Report", can be seen online here. I am guessing that this may have been a privately commissioned document not for "public consumption". Their website indicates that most of the publications they produce are confidential. Hence, for unknown reasons, it is possible that someone took it upon themselves to upload the report to the Internet. Joan Holmes & Associates is a large, Ottawa - based, firm specialising in conducting research pertaining to First Nations, matters. Her team consists of over 20 individuals, with varied backgrounds, and offers comprehensive services. See their website here.
As someone who has researched these same files and many others at the National Archives, it is my opinion that the report by Joan Holmes includes data that is valid and pertains directly to the land claims now before the Courts.
First I will present the conclusion of Holmes, followed by excerpts from the relevant documents. All of these records are provided with suitable RG10 reference tags which would allow anyone at large to verify each and every one of them, should there be a wish to contest any for one reason or another.
The conclusion: The Elgin Proclamation of 1850, which extended the provisions of An Act for protection of Indians in Upper Canada from imposition, and the property occupied or enjoyed by them from trespass and injury to Indian lands in Upper Canada, indicated that the land reserved to the Six Nations of the Grand River was limited to land in the Townships of Tuscarora, Oneida, and Onondaga and a 200 acre block in Eagle's Nest, Brantford Township. Similarly, the report of the Commissioner appointed to investigate Indian Affairs, tabled in 1858, showed that the lands reserved for the Six Nations of the Grand River did not include any land in the Township of Brantford with the exception of the 200-acre block. These 1850 and 1858 documents indicate that all of the other land in the Haldimand tract, which would have included the Johnson Settlement, Eagle's Nest and Oxbow tracts, had been surrendered by the Six Nations prior to 1850 (p. 9).
The events of the following years reflect the shifting tides of opinion of the Chiefs, basically changing their minds and reversing or altering previous decisions.
1841: Holmes provides information equivalent to what the present author has included above. 18 January 1841 can be considered as the key date initiating the series of amendments and culminating in a full Surrender on 18 December 1844 for all but the Burtch Tract lands and any outliers, all of which were fully addressed by 1848 and capped off by the Land Inspection Returns and Township surveys of 1845, and Lord Elgin's Report of 1850.
1843: Two years after making the original surrender of land, the Chiefs, upon discussion and reflection, decided that they would like to make an amendment to the original provisions. As a result, the Committee of the Executive Council noted that the original reservation was to have consisted of 20,000 acres and that the petitioners were now asking for over 55,000 acres composed of lands on the south side of the Grand River, along with the Oxbow tract (1,200 acres), Eagle's Nest (1,800 acres), the Martin tract (1,500 acres), the Johnson settlement (7,000 acres), and a church lot in Tuscarora. Nearly all the lands in the Oxbow, Eagle's Nest, Martin and Johnson settlements were said to be in the possession of White settlers under titles given by individual Indians (p. 10).
1844: Here the Chiefs, again after many days of consultation, From this answer they unanimously recede and therefore agree that the same be sold. The chiefs further desire that there be reserved at or near the Mohawk School two Hundred acres of land for the use of the said school so that the Scholars may then be Ensured agricultural pursuits. [Located in the Eagle's Nest, Brantford Township] ....... They also desire that the Indian cleared lands on the north side may be exchanged for those on the south side thus recompensing the possessors of improvements from Burtch's to Lot No. 72 on the River. [Located along the Grand River below the Oxbow and adjacent to the boundary between Brantford and Tuscarora]. Holmes added the brackets in accompanying information. The date of the Council meeting was 18 December 1844 - it should be considered as the correct date of the Surrender of all lands outside the boundary of the present day Six Nations Reserve.
Furthermore, The Six Nations are desirous that 3,600 acres of land may also be reserved for the Tuscarora Tribe on the north side of the River in the Township of Onondaga in and around the Church and mission establishment of the New England Companies provided that such Reserve may not be prejudicial to their reserve on the south side the River as here on desired (p. 12).
The signatures of 45 Chiefs are appended to the above documents, all being certified as eligible signators by Thorburn. In the accompanying Minutes of the meeting of the Chiefs in Council, 47 signatures are attached. Five days later, in the presence of David Thorburn and James Winniet, 45 Chiefs were present and affixed their signatures to the Minutes taken at that time. Here Holmes concluded that, It is my opinion that the report of Thorbum, signed by the chiefs and the minute of the two Council meetings show that the Council was properly called, time was given for consultation and deliberation, an interpreter was used and the document carefully reviewed before signing. In summary, The document indicates that the Six Nation Chiefs in Council agree to have the Township of Tuscarora set aside as their reserve, along with a reservation of 200 acres at or near the "Mohawk School", and a reservation of 3,600 aces in Onondaga Township on the north side of the Grand River for the Tuscaroras. In addition they wanted to retain a range of lots from Burtch's Lot to Lot 72 (p. 14). The Chiefs had, unanimously recede and therefore agree that the same be sold is the terminology found in the Council Minutes. Also included are procedural details such as the reading paragraph by paragraph of each surrender or decision by the interpreter, Jacob Martin, who functioned in this capacity as early as the 1830s and appears to have been well respected and trusted by all sides.
1845: The primary outstanding matter was the Burtch Tract. According to the Government, The Governor General regrets to learn that the chiefs still desire to have induded in their proposed Reserve the land in the Township of Brantford between Burchs [sic] Landing and the lot 72 on the
River in Tuscarora upon which there are so many settlers the value of whose improvements will amount to a considerable sum and whose removal if it should be practicable which is at present
doubtful cannot be effected without causing very general dissatisfaction amongst them and a heavy expense upon the funds of the Tribe (p. 15).
Sixty chiefs were present at a Council meeting of April 8, 1845. At that time they indicated that they had deliberated extensively and receded from their former position regarding the 3,600 acres on the north side in Onondaga Township except for a tier of river lots beginning at lot 45 and running to their council house which was on Lot 60 or 61 (p. 16).
The next part has the most direct relevance to the lands in the vicinity of Caledonia. The Council met again on September 17 and 18, 1845. Sixty-six chiefs were in attendance on September 17. The following is recorded,
... After much time spent in discussion, [illegible word] the submission it was finally resolved [illegible word or words] reserves should consist of the lands adjoining, the tier of Lots on the west side of the Plank road in the township of Oneida and the whole of. the Township of Tuscarora and such Lots or portions in the Burtch tract in the Township of Brantford as the White settlers thereon could not on an Examination (before the Chiefs in council at this place) shew that they had an equitable claim.
It is critical to note that the lands west of the Plank Road which are being referred to here are those which presently adjoin the consolidated reserve, those lots bordering on Tuscarora Township. There has never been any question about these lands, but the description does not refer to the lands in the rest of Oneida Township bordering the Plank Road or elsewhere - only what is on the present day Reserve. The above also included the following clause:
And that in the said Township of Brantford at the Mohawk Mission School Two hundred acres and
further in the Township of Onondaga a tier of River Lots from forty five to Sixty one inclusive.
further in the Township of Onondaga a tier of River Lots from forty five to Sixty one inclusive.
Holmes concluded that, Lands in the Township of Tuscarora, 200 acres at the Mohawk mission
school, and lots 45 to 61 in Onondaga were requested for reservation, as previously indicated. Lands in Oneida Township had been added and the Council had indicated consent to reserve only the portions of the Butch tract on which settlers could not establish a legitimate claim (p. 16).
school, and lots 45 to 61 in Onondaga were requested for reservation, as previously indicated. Lands in Oneida Township had been added and the Council had indicated consent to reserve only the portions of the Butch tract on which settlers could not establish a legitimate claim (p. 16).
More amendments were in the offing as things were fine tuned so that everyone would be content with the surrenders.
1846: In February 1846 the Six Nations Chiefs sent a lengthy petition to the Administrator of the Government in which they acknowledged that they had surrendered specific lands subsequent to October 1843, including lands in the Oxbow, Eagle's Nest and Johnson Settlement.
Thorburn reported that, Your Excellency's Petitioners were induced to surrender for sale all their land on the South side of the Grand River situated between the Bridge at the village of Caledonia and the Townships of Dunn; and also tracts of their land of considerable extent in Martin's settlement, the Ox-bow, the Eagles' nest and Johnson's Settlement (p. 19).
Furthermore, another description described the lands to be reserved as of 1846,
In the Township of Oneida, from the Tier of Lots on the West Side of the Plank Road to the boundary line of the Township of Tuscarora, and the whole of the Township of Tuscarora, and a parcel of 200 Acres lying adjacent to the Mohawk Institute, in the Township of Brantford, and on the North side of the Grand River, in the Township of Onondaga, a tier of River Lots, from No. 61 to 45, .both inclusive.. (p. 20).
If there is any fuzziness in the understanding of what the Chiefs meant in relation to Oneida Township, this can be addressed by referring to the Land Inspection Returns which I discussed in length in a previous blog, where the survey and descriptions show that the only lands reserved here were in the tract West of the Plank Road, where the Reserve exists today. All other lands, except those occupied by individual Indians, were surveyed and Crown grants given to purchasers.
1848: The lands at the Burtch Tract still remained something of a thorn for the Chiefs. Finally though, the Chiefs relented to the argument that it was in their best interests to grant the Burtch Tract, primarily because the compensation of the tenants then living on the land would seriously compromise the funds of the Six Nations. So, At the Council meeting of March 8, at which 31 chiefs were present, Commissioner David Thorbum relayed a message stating that the "governor general ... is pleased to accede to the request for a deed confirming the Reserve to the Six Nations not including the Burtch tract (p. 20).
Thus, all were in agreement with, His Lordship in saying they might have 55,000 acres; evidently meant if such could be had in conformity with the request of the Council, that their settlements should be entirely Indian and compact. This has been done as far as existing circumstances at the time would permit & a compact settlement could only be given from the west side of the tier of Lots on the Plank road in Oneida stretching westward to the Line separating the townships of Tuscarora from the Burtch tract in Brantford ..... (p. 21).
As to Caledonia: Hence the intention was to reserve only those lots of land in Oneida from the west side of the tier of lots behind the Plank Road. This does not include the lots on the Plank Road, only those beyond the six lot deep tier ending at the present day Reserve in Oneida. I am not sure how much more clear the records have to be to allow Six Nations to understand that the Douglas Creek Estates property was ceded in 1841, and further described in various documents (be they the above or the Land Inspection Returns and survey records or what is on title in the Haldimand County Land Records Office).
As to the Burtch Tract: Since the Burtch Tract is also such a contentious matter at present, it is noteworthy that again, on March 25 [1848] they [Six Nations Chiefs in Council] agreed to the sale of land in the Burtch Tract, Having.thus surrendered to Her Majesty for sale the Burtch tract of land in the manner set forth the council desire that no further surrender of any portion of their Land take place within the declared general Reservation in Oneida Tuscarora and Onondaga tract that the same be confirmed by Deed to them and their posterity for ever (p. 22).
1850: The final description of the entirety of the reserved lands is found in proclamation of the Governor General for Upper Canada, Lord Elgin's Proclamation of 1850 (Statute of the Province of Canada, 13 & 14 Vict. Cap 74) for protection of Indians in Upper Canada from imposition, and the properly occupied or enjoyed by them from trespass and injury, which had been assented to in August 1850. Elgin's proclamation specifically extended the protection of Sections 10, 11 and 12 to Indian lands in Upper Canada including the following lands in the Haldimand Tract:
... certain tract or parcel of land, situate in the Township of ONEIDA in the County of Haldimand ... comprising lots numbers one, two, three, four, five and six in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth concessions respectively of Oneida .. and also, River lots numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve in the same Township. ... the whole of the Township of TUSCARORA .. Also, to that certain parcel of Land containing Two Hundred Acres more or less, adjacent to the Mohawk Church, and known as LOT NUMBER FIVE, in the Eagle's Nest, in the Township of BRANTFORD, in the said county of Wentworth. ... Township of ONONDAGA ... east of Fairchild's Creek, known as River Lots numbers forty-five, forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight,
forty-nine, fifty, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fifty-five, fifty- six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, sixty, sixty-one in the third Concession, of the same Township (pp. 22-3). A sketch accompanies the above description. I have not seen the original documents here. The original with various attachments including a map, is the foundation of the Indian Land Registry system and thus Federal Government authorities could presumably produce this document, and preferably publish it so there will be no questions left hanging about the series of surrenders during the 1840s.
Conclusion of Holmes: It is my opinion that the historical documents cited above dating from the 1840s, indicate that the Six Nations Chiefs in Council expressed their intention to reserve particular lands for their exclusive use and surrendered the remained for sale. By February 1846, they had agreed to allow the sale of lands in the Martin's and Johnson Settlements, Oxbow tracts, and Eagle's Nest, with the exception of a 200-acre block variously described as being in the vicinity of the Mohawk mission or school. In 1848 they finally agreed to the sale of the Burtch Tract. The Elgin Proclamation of 1850 appears to accurately describe the lands that the Six Nations Chiefs in Council had resolved to reserve for their exclusive use as of 1850. The lands not intended for reservation were to be sold (p. 25).
In my opinion, there is absolutely no wiggle room. The above description is the extent of the reserved land as negotiated by the Six Nations and representatives of the Government. This is entirely supported by the attached list of documents. The documents have been assembled in a very thorough and comprehensive report by Holmes who has sorted through the documents to arrive at what can be the only conclusion based on factual evidence. As Hornell has stated, since Lord Elgin's report was done with the approval of Queen Victoria (the Crown), or it would not have been submitted at all, then the Crown was exercising its legal mandate, not disputed by Six Nations, and so the terms of the Proclamation reflected the agreement of all parties (p. 11). Hence the giving of a Crown deed in 1848 for the parcel upon which the Douglas Creek Estates is situated, and registering it on title in the Land Registry Office, is entirely consistent with all of the evidence. The property indeed belonged to Henco Industries Ltd. until purchased by the Provincial Government.
It seems evident that the following land claims, based on the above evidence, have no support in fact: Claim 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 21 as described in the booklet of the "Six Nations Lands & Resources" branch of the Six Nations Council. See here for this document. Some of the other claims, relating to land and resources, deserve a closer inspection. I will explore each of these in later blog postings.
Any changes since the date of 1850 must be considered, but this rules out most of the present land claims being asserted by Six Nations. Were it not for the efforts of people such as Holmes, willing to sift through mountains of old documents contained within the vast collections of the Indian Affairs Papers, we would forever be faced with those who would assert their beliefs as reality and the truth would be sacrificed. The work is unassailable and the Six Nations will eventually have to face facts.
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)