Contraband Tobacco, Bill C-10 and Six Nations: Threatened Violence and Protests Loom Over Haldimand and Brant

Background to the Bill C-10 Controversy:  The matter of Bill C-10, and its potential impact on one of the mainstays of the economy at Six Nations, contraband tobacco, has been heating up lately as the date of the probable passage of this Bill into law looms.  Threats of violence and other action which could / would impact Haldimand and Brant should the Bill pass, have even been issued. 

Earlier I provided some background to the problem as seen here.  First, a quick review of some of the salient points would be in order before exploring the latest developments.

The infiltration of illegal contraband (untaxed) tobacco into the Six Nations Community, which began about 35 years ago, was in large measure merely tolerated by many (including all levels of government).  No one was under any illusion as to where this tobacco being sold on the Reserve to anyone (age restrictions optional) was coming from.  It was being smuggled by boat and transport truck from Cornwall Island and other locations at the Akwesasne Mohawk Reserve which is parsed into Ontario, Quebec, and New York geographical segments (the Reserve is within all these jurisdictions - and thus both Canada and the United States).  In the 1980s small huts began sprouting up everywhere on the Reserve, and most particularly in areas where there would be high traffic of White people (e.g., Highway 54 east of Chiefswood Bridge), and on the peripheries of Brantford, Hagersville and Caledonia.  Once the saturation level of these aesthetically displeasing shanties with associated traffic annoyances reached a tipping point, I sold my home and moved to an area where my family and I would not be daily (hourly) exposed to these establishments. 

Over time whole extended families began to invest heavily in this enterprise since, although technically illegal, it was not a problem once the product reached the Reserve.  One company in particular, Grand River Enterprises, became wildly successful with owners becoming in the process immensely wealthy - wisely expanding into other business enterprises.  They presently employ upwards of 300 Reserve residents.  The gravy train just kept moving and there appeared to be no significant impediments (although GRE was taken to Court in the USA to answer charges when their activities crossed some line or other). 

 

More information on this enterprise is found in abbreviated form here, or in detail here.  Some of the local brands shown below.

 

Basically people around here tolerated this illegal behavior because it was a livelihood to friends, neighbours, and kin.  So until 2014 everything was more or less status quo, with a few rough edges (arguments between "retailers" over turf; GRE in legal hot water and issues related to how much if any "taxes" they should pay on Reserve).  However once the Federal Government decided that organized crime was robbing taxpayers or billions of dollars, they decided to crack down via Bill C-10 (Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act) to criminalize the transport or trafficking of contraband cigarettes.  Six Nations got their heads out of ....................... the sand, and realized that they had been living in a dream world for more than a generation and had taken everything for granted and most had put all their eggs in one basket - not a wise thing.  So the panic mode set in. 

A picture of the GRE (Deutchland) factory in Germany is seen below.



Six Nations Takes Action on Bill C-10:  The Elected Council, the Hereditary Council, GRE, other groups all scurring around linking up with other communities engaged in the same illegal practices (e.g., Akwesasne, Kahnawake, Tyendinaga) to try to convince the Federal Government that the economies here depended on contraband cigarettes.  Alas, they did not have much leverage.  Cigarettes are a known health hazard and most of us have lost loved ones to nicotine addiction.  Not much sympathy could be expected from any quarter, considering the nature of the product.  The picture below is perhaps a little sensational - but the baby is purportedly a chain smoker.  Cigarettes are going to be a "hard sell" when lobbying politicians due to both perception and reality.



Here at Six Nations the Elected Chief, was recently elected on a platform of somehow uniting the major factions at Six Nations to address common causes (e.g., land claims).  Articles in "Turtle Island News" have been very critical of the Chief's actions - for example in terms of actions, generally excluding the Hereditary Council supporters, but in the arena of words and rhetoric, claiming a desire to include them.  So it has been the Elected Council who has led the charge to get the Federal Government to repeal Bill C-10.  Alas, they do not seem to have been able to come up with a viable plan.  The Bill is in second reading (shouldn't any action have been taken at first reading?), and will likely pass third reading within a month and go to the Senate for approval and the new provisions to Bill C-10 will become law likely by June.  Six Nations seems oddly resigned to the facts here, but they are presently in Ottawa attempting to lobby support to in some undefined way mitigate the likely economic fall out.  As is so often the case, instead of employing self - reliance as a strategy, Six Nations expects the Government to come to the rescue - despite on the other hand wanting government out of their lives, and espousing all sorts of adamant statements about sovereignty and self - determination.  Self - determination does not, apparently, involve self - reliance.  See book by Tsimshian lawyer Calvin Helin, Dances with Dependency: Out of Poverty Through Self-Reliance, Woodland Hills, CA, Ravencrest Publishing, 2008.

So expecting some sort of government bail out, or rescue, Six Nations Elected Chief appears to realize that things are not going well.  At Six Nations, since Caledonia 2006, a rule of thumb has been, when cornered or when in doubt, turn to disruptive and anti-social strategies, they often work.  What the Chief does not seem to realize though is that when the product is cigarettes, public support will be difficult to achieve under the most delicate of negotiations.  But threats of dire consequences, a reflection of desperation and the fact that there was no viable proposal to the government, began to be expressed by those in authority.

Threat of Violence if Bill C-10 Passes:  Quite frankly, even understanding the dynamic here, I was shocked to learn that the Elected Chief had threatened that if Six Nations doesn't get their way - expect violence!

In "Turtle Island News", April 16, 2014, p.3 there is an article, "Elected chief warns Ottawa of 'threat of violence' if Bill C-10 approved".  This has an immediate visceral effect on those of us who saw the events of Caledonia 2006 and aftermath unfold.  There were assaults on citizens and police officers, intimidation of people just going about their normal routines (e.g., requiring them to have Haudenosaunee passports to get past barricades to drive to their own home), vandalism, arson and so on.  The situation brought out the basest of tendencies in a disturbingly high number of Six Nations Community members.  It is well known around here what "violence" means, and considering that people's livelihoods are on the line - who knows what escalation might occur.  The words, attributed to the Elected Chief, noted in the newspaper article were, "If this bill passes, there's a threat of violence that could occur in our communities".  Although the passage is open to interpretation, the way I read it is that Six Nations will turn their anger on local people, not Ottawa.

The threat was made after meeting with senators, and likely realizing that desperate times call for desperate measures.  If this is not an idle threat, and push does come to shove, there is one thing that is certain.  Residents of Caledonia and surrounds have had it up to the gills with the antics shown by Six Nations Community members.  If it becomes evident that Elected Chief Hill's words are to be interpreted literally, then I will include what was originally written in this paragraph - but I don't want to jump the gun - there is as yet no evidence that actions would follow words in this instance.

It is a shame that Elected Chief Hill appears to have not thought through the consequences of what was said.  People around here know full well what the terms Six Nations and violence mean when used in the same sentence. 

Perhaps Chief Hill was just overstating the case to make a point.  Lets hope so.

Last Minute Efforts to "Kill Bill: C-10":  The cover page of "Two Row Times", April 23rd, 2014 has two thirds of the page in gold, with the words, "Kill Bill: c10" at the top, and three red lines descending to the bottom of the gold area under the I, and the two Ls - making it look like blood dripping in three parallel lines.  Subtle .................  Of course since things are in a crisis mode now, out come the "supporters" and "solidarity" groups who have in the past used Six Nations to further their own causes.  In the article, written by the "TRT Staff" (which includes known non-Native Communists and Anarchists) of the above paper entitled, "Coalition created to fight Bill C-10" (p.7), they call the Bill, "an act to criminalize Native tobacco".  It is not at all difficult to figure out who the true author of this article is.  "They" invite readers to visit the website that has been set up in Toronto, namely http://billc10.ca/. 

In looking at the content of this website, there are some expected and unexpected articles.  One entitled, "Tobacco: History and Health" starts with the following paragraph, As  I place Mr. X on a breathing machine he flashes me a look from his terrified eyes. I know this look well, the desperate cry for help of a drowning man. But he is not drowning in water. He has spent a lifetime drowning in smoke and his lungs are now so shattered that his tiring, heaving shoulders are unable to bring in enough air for his next breath. I will not be able to pull him back to shore. His lungs are failing, he is dying and he knows it. 

The last paragraph in the article is as follows, I would hope that just as tobacco helped nation build for the United States so too it may allow Ongwehon:we nations to rebuild their sovereignty and along with that other economic opportunities that are less harmful than commercial Tobacco. In the meantime, attempting to deny them this right will only lead to further poverty, marginalization and criminalization all of which are powerful contributors to ill health and chronic disease.

Dr. Chris Keefer is a physician in the emergency department of the Brantford General Hospital.

According to the TRT article, the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903 is taking a lead role in this venture (how their members feel about their dues going to this cause is another matter). Local 3903 is headed by Tom Keefer, an owner / manager of TRT, who has never made a secret of his Communist and Anarchist affiliations.  If history teaches us anything, this will mean "protests" on the doorstep of Caledonia - again - with the specter of chaos looming largely, as is the stated goal of these groups.

Before I read the article it occurred that they would need to find some cause to which Canadian citizens would be more sympathetic (cigarette sales will not evoke much sympathy) and put it into play.  Indeed, they somehow managed to bring in the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women and stretch it to fit the cigarette mold.  Then out comes the Two Row Wampum assumed treaty rights, and the supposed "attacks" by the Harper Government on Native people.  Immediately below the above article is an "editorial" entitled, "Stop Harper's war on indigenous communities" filled with righteous indignation and misinformation.  It would be more persuasive if Native people authored these articles.

Turning to the other Reserve Newspaper, "Turtle Island News" to see what they have to say about recent developments in the fight against Bill C-10, there is only a cartoon (p.6) showing the Native man with a ball and chain on his leg (the caption on the ball reads, "Disunity Since 1924") and a huge WWII type sea mine with a lit fuse and "Bill C-10" written on it.  The balloon over the man's head says, "This can't end well". 

Interesting that as yet in TIN there is no information about the White radical "solidarity" supporters affiliated with the rival TRT newspaper.  There is every reason to suspect (based on past behaviour) that TRT officials will, as they have many times in the past (before their involvement with TRT), use Six Nations to further their own radical agenda, with the primary targets of their venom being the innocent but convenient residents of Caledonia.

DeYo.

Consultation and Accommodation Policy of Six Nations: Example of Enbridge Pipelines, Inc.

Updated 25 April 2014.

An article, "Enbridge told to consult with community after hot council session", appeared in the most recent issue of "Turtle Island News", 9 April 2014, p.6. 

The Requirement of a Corporation to Consult and Accommodate When a Group Claims Aboriginal Status and Treaty Rights:  There is an inherent assumption here that there is a formal requirement that corporations who intend to proceed with projects that will impact lands within the Haldimand Tract, or even Southwestern Ontario, must consult with Six Nations.  Before delving into the specifics of the present concerns in relation to "Energy giant Enbridge Pipelines,  Inc.", it will be useful to determine what legal requirement is established in relation to "consultation", which in turn may determine what restrictions are placed on the actions of a company such as Enbridge working in Southwestern Ontario.  My question is, "what if they had been led astray, and a group is claiming baseless 'rights' to be consulted, and demanding accommodation"?  It must be acknowledged that the situation in Southwestern Ontario may bear little to no parallel with what occurs in say Alberta and British Columbia.

Six Nations Demands Consultation:  At a recent Elected Council session, as noted in the above article, two members of Enbridge's "advisors for the company's aboriginal affairs division" were grilled, and then told, by the way, this was not "consultation" (the formal part).  The assumption here was that Six Nations have rights, not defined in the article, which required that Enbridge consult with Six Nations about two pipelines which cross the Haldimand Tract, both on lands surrendered prior to 1849.  The question here is, "What is the legislation or policy that would require a corporation to consult with Six Nations about matters that do not directly impact the lands under Six Nations jurisdiction?"  If it is a more general environmental matter concerning say possible pipeline ruptures, then any consultation would, one would think, need to involve all stakeholders - which would be for example all people say downstream of the pipelines, irrespective of ethnicity.  It would appear that Six Nations have in place some requirement that corporations need to consult with them, irrespective of any other stakeholder.

        Possible Rationales for Mandatory Consultation -

a)  The "Grand River Notification Agreement" which was instituted in 1998, and has been in effect until at least 2013 when the most recent 5 year renewal component was set to be either renewed or abandoned.  See here for the details of the Agreement.  Here the various municipalities within the Grand River Haldimand Tract, and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) agreed to "consultation about land use issues", this might be the club the Elected Council was wielding against Enbridge.  However since this agreement about consultation is with local municipalities and the GRCA, it would appear unlikely that this document is pertinent to the present situation - especially since the clause, "This agreement is not legally binding on any of the Parties" would seem to rule out its application to the conflict between Six Nations and Enbridge.

b)   The "Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation - Updated Guideline for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult - March 2011".  See here for details.  Perhaps the Council's position that Enbridge was mandated in some way to consult might come under the Federal Government's purview.  However, this document appears to apply only to instances where the Federal Government is the primary party - which does not appear to be the case with the Enbridge matter where the problem appears to be only between Enbridge and Six Nations.  Besides, this provision applies only to Aboriginal groups (the Mississauga not the Six Nations are "Aboriginal" to the Haldimand Tract), who have Treaty Rights (Six Nations only have perceived "treaty rights" based on the fraudulent Nanfan agreement of 1701 - there is no treaty with the Crown as to Grand River lands).

***  So I ask the question, "Upon what basis does Six Nations claim to have a right to be consulted by Enbridge Pipelines?"  My guess here is that it hinges on the invalid Nanfan "Treaty" of 1701 relating to all of Southwestern Ontario, and Land Claims in the Haldimand Tract which assert rights to lands rightfully and legally ceded 170 or more years ago.  For evidence concerning these treaty and land claim rights of Six Nations see my posting here.  A number of groups at Six Nations, claiming legitimacy derived from the above two matters, have emerged subsequent to 2006 - after the government bungling of the "Caledonia crisis".  Here the Provincial and Federal Governments, as well as the Ontario Provincial Police, have acted as enablers, as if allowing adolescent children to test the limits.  Apparently there are no limits, and in only one instance has there been any significant consequences to illegal actions taken by Six Nations.  Hence the latter have been quick to capitalize on this weak willed, weak kneed group to embark on an array of self serving and quite arbitrary (but always about money and control) plans which have the potential to harm local people, and more particularly corporate entities  In the midst of the swirling chaos, two groups, noted below, use the above underlined matters as rationales to demand that, for example, developers and utility companies throughout Southwestern Ontario consult with them, and pay a fee for the privilege of having demands forced down their throats.  One obtains its authority via the Hereditary Council faction, and the other via the Elected Council faction.

        Two Groups Potentially Requiring Mandatory Consultation by Enbridge -

a)   The "Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI)".  This is an entity which has arisen from the ashes of the "reclamation" of 2006.  A Wikipedia article, apparently written by an HDI official) can be seen here.  In relation to development of any kind, it acts as an enforcer the Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Council (HCCC, the "shadow cabinet" to the present Elected Council which claims historical and moral authority in all conceivable matters at Six Nations).  Here the HDI claims the right to extract application fees from developers, and to insert paid archaeological monitors to sites within Southwestern Ontario despite already having Elected Council approved individuals, trained by the Professional Archaeological Association of Ontario, on site.  The monies derived from these "deals", often emerging after a van load of goons appears on the developers doorstep, go into a fund where there is absolutely no transparency.  No one at Six Nations outside the HDI has any idea where these "community funds" go.  In any other jurisdiction they would be shut down, and taken to Court to answer charges of possible fraud and extortion - but this is Six Nations, and this is post 2006, so Six Nations makes their own rules, and oddly few seem willing to challenge them.  A recent "settlement" in the fine levied by the Superior Court of Ontario due to a violation of a Court Injunction has brought this matter into focus, and has effectively neutered the HDI.  I will post on this development in short order. 

Not to be outdone, the Elected Council, aware of the financial success of the HDI, has developed a "team" called CAP to serve their own interests (the Hereditary Council and the Elected Council are generally not on speaking terms - which means that the Federal Government is at a loss as to who should be consulted in virtually any matter of consequence).

b)   The Consultation and Accommodation Policy (CAP).  While not explicitly mentioned in the newspaper article, is seemed evident that Enbridge was being castigated by Six Nations Council members because, since Caledonia 2006, another new "policy" is in place.  In this case it is a child not of the HCCC, but of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC).  This "policy" has impacted, for example, Samsung of Korea, in this case concerning their plans to install wind turbines along the Lake Erie shore. 

The "Team" claims authority within the bounds of the fraudulent Nanfan document of 1701, and more particularly within lands in the Haldimand Tract ceded by Six Nations 170 and more years ago, and to which they have not one particle of legal right.  I have refuted the pretext in many of the blog postings (for example see here), as have many others independently researching the matter, and collectively we have shown with proper references that:

1)  The Six Nations are aboriginal to what is today Upstate New York, not Ontario.  The Mississauga are aboriginal to Ontario by right of conquest, defeating the then Five Nations who had in an act of earlier genocide, murdered the indigenous Huron / Wyandot and others.  All Five Nations settlements were gone from Southwest Ontario by 1696, and they formally surrendered to the Mississauga and allies in 1700.  The British Crown purchased the Haldimand Tract from the Mississauga in 1784 in order that they could offer Six Nations a legal title of occupation to the lands of the Grand River.

2)  The Nanfan document of 1701, purportedly giving "treaty rights" to Six Nations, is not by any stretch of the imagination a treaty, only a sham piece of parchment, not worth the sheep hide it is written on.  The document was never given the Privy Seal of the Crown and had no status at any time - until recently "revived".  At any rate there was no Five Nations presence in Southwestern Ontario in 1701, they having lost all claim 5 years earlier, so it is invalidated on this basis alone.

3)  There is ample documentation that all lands not within the present Reserve boundaries have long ago passed from Six Nations ownership.  These land surrenders to the Crown were entirely legal and binding, signed by for example 67 Chiefs in Council, who frequently included a clause that they wished that future generations not challenge their decisions.  By 1848 all presently "contested" lands had been legally ceded.  In my view, it is not proper to go against the wishes that the ancestors had finalized so many years ago.  Apparently I am in the minority.

So, despite the evidence, and the 2010 opinion of Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Brantford that Six Nations that should they bring the matter to Court, Six Nations would have a "very weak" case in relation to land claims, no one has challenged the "rights" of Six Nations.  As it stands they can coerce a company, and force them to "consult" (be raked over the coals if they do not see the wisdom of agreeing to everything Six Nations "proposes"), and "accommodate" which roughly translated means bowing to Six Nations wishes ("or else") and pay up.  The Six Nations are laughing all the way to the bank as the rich corporations are willing to cough up whatever is demanded rather than take Six Nations to Court and expose this illegal "policy" for what it is.

(CAP) formally emerged 24 September 2013, so is a relatively new player on the scene - although something similar but less formal was in place earlier.  Frankly, since I was out of the Country when this was quietly introduced, it passed under my radar until my return a few weeks ago when I began to piece together all of the evidence as to who was "leaning on" corporations such as Samsung.  The subtitle of their policy is, "A Policy to obtain free, prior and informed consent of the peoples of the Six Nations of the Grand River".  Free?  So that means all of the wind turbine companies paid nothing - which is not true, as I have detailed elsewhere in this blog.  So now can Enbridge expect that by "consulting", that part of the "accommodation" will NOT involve paying money?  The answer should be self evident.

In looking at the 7 page CAP description of their policies and procedures (see here), they refer to the United Nations policies on aboriginal peoples (Six Nations are not aboriginal to the Grand River, only the Mississauga can make that valid claim), International Laws, and duties of the Crown (which has "failed in their fiduciary duty"), certain procedures need to be followed.  They further state that they expect that they will be fully funded by others, and that others have responsibilities and duties - and that Six Nations have rights and entitlements.  To add to the narcissism of the document, it dictates that the Policy does not apply to third party private land owners - but only those who are "Members of Six Nations within the SNGR Territory".  This document is a unilateral declaration, it has no weight in law or precedence, it is simply a rationalization for what Six Nations have already been doing since 2006.  They state that they "fully expect" that "all Proponents, municipalities and The Crown to respect the terms of this policy". 

Here in the CAP policy manual they refer to "inherent rights, treaty rights, and title".  In effect none of these three apply.  To repeat, because it bears repeating, the Six Nations are not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario and the Haldimand Tract, they are Loyalist refugees who were given a specified territory in which they could reside, but that the title to the Grand River lands is vested in the Crown - never has the latter been successfully challenged.  In the period leading up to 1848, all lands within the Haldimand Tract were ceded, surrendered and yielded up such that the only lands to which they have any rights is Indian Reserve Number 40, the Six Nations Reserve of about 46,500 acres.  See here for specific evidence of these false claims, as well as to rights by virtue of the Nanfan "Treaty".

There is even an "Enforcement" clause whereby if anyone fails to abide by Six Nations views in the matter, they will take actions including, "dispute resolution, legal action; and any other action deemed reasonable".  As to the latter, in the past Six Nations have included violence in the category of "deemed reasonable".  In case any believe that this would not apply today, in the most recent issue of Turtle Island News, 16 April 2014, p.3, there is an article entitled, "Elected chief warns Ottawa of' 'threat of violence' if Bill C-10 approved".  So the Chief of the Elected Council is warning all (not just the Federal Government) that if Bill C-10 passes, in other words cracking down on the transport of contraband unstamped cigarettes (sometimes known as purveyors of death), "violence" can be expected.  

The only groups who would agree to having anything to do with CAP are those who are extremely naïve, or believe that giving in to strong arm interests is just the price of doing business, and that to stand on moral and legal grounds is simply more trouble than it is worth.

Now that we appear to have established the rationale for requiring Enbridge to meet with Six Nations, we can return to the content of the above article.  Clearly Six Nations feel so empowered (since no one has stood up to challenge them) to assert a veiled threat that Six Nations could arrange to remove any pipeline that crosses their territory.  One Councillor said, "You're crossing the Grand River twice in our territory", he said.  "What happens if we want you off our territory?"  Of course this is an absurd threat because neither pipeline crosses Reserve land.  One crosses the River at Ayr, and the other just east of Caledonia (the latter crossing shown in the picture below taken 14 April 2014, with the River in flood).

 

It came as no surprise that "compensation" should be brought into the mix (with environmental concerns being shuffled out the door).  The Council Chief, "expressed concerns that Six Nations has not been compensated for Enbridge's use of Six Nations land".  I am confused, what land would this be?  The answer was not long is coming.  Elected Chief Ava Hill said the compensation 'has to be retroactive to 1960, when it was first put in.  It's called reverse accommodation'.  Actually the term threatened extortion may apply here - especially since Six Nations has absolutely no "rights" within the lands that the pipeline crosses.  If Enbridge caves in here, it will be a political decision, not a legal one.  Hopefully they will have the will to see justice done and will take the whole matter of land rights to Court.

There is further information on the "meeting" between Enbridge officials and Elected Council in "Two Row Times", April 9th, 2014, p.7 in an article entitled, "Enbridge gets a piece of Elected Council's mind".  If the statements recorded in this article are correct, then the representatives of Six Nations were arrogant and utterly rude, making accusations and demands that certainly appear to be unwarranted.  It appears that the Enbridge representatives assumed that they were meeting about environmental issues, and were not aware of any "requirements" for consultation and in particular accommodation, and were confused about the nature of the meeting since they assumed it was about the technical aspects of the pipeline process.  This is understandable since no one seems to have taken the time to explain that there is now in place "CAP", a completely arbitrary assumption of powers mimicking those of the weakened (due to the Brantford Injunction) Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) of the Hereditary Council.  Somehow Enbridge is supposed to read minds and know about policies grabbed from the air with which to pummel developers with claims of invalid legal rights.  The lands are not part of the Six Nations Reserve, they are privately owned and have been since the 1830s, and the lands on title in the Cayuga Land Registry Office.  The lands on which the pipeline (Line 11) and Hydro Transmission towers are situated (e.g., Lot 26, Seneca Township) are not even part of a land claim - and even if they were it would be meaningless since the lands were properly ceded in the 1840s.  The Council Chief told the Enbridge representatives that, there has been no accommodation or compensation of any sorts and wondered why, since the pipelines cross two unceded areas of the Grand River which is still under the Haldimand Tract.  My own ancestors held legal title to Lot 26 (claimed by Barefoot Onondaga members) from the earliest days, and so the claim by Council is specious. Perhaps I would be the proper person for Enbridge to consult with.  In working with me they would have to pay nothing, since the lands were ceded over 170 years ago, but I would request assurances that all possible environmental protection measures were in place.  Council is presuming powers that they in fact do not possess, over lands that they do not possess.  The "power trip" over the oil giant was, I am guessing, very pleasing to those who participated - except of course the Enbridge officials who must have wondered if they should be laughing or crying.  It would be truly pathetic if Enbridge caved in to Six Nations on this one - but it may be the lesser of unpalatable alternatives which include being perceived as being "insensitive" to Aboriginal wishes (although Six Nations are not aboriginal to the Haldimand Tract).

According to the article first noted, further "community engagement sessions" are planned.  I hope that Enbridge is aware of the difference between perceived rights and true rights, otherwise they are likely to get taken to the cleaners.  Just the price of doing business?

DeYo.

Wind Turbine Deals and the Myth of Unceded Six Nations Land in Dunn and South Cayuga Townships

In a previous posting I discussed recent events whereby the Six Nations succeeded in asserting perceived treaty rights in Southwestern Ontario, positioning themselves as key players in the negotiations and ultimate agreements pertaining to land  that will be used to build highly controversial "green energy" wind turbines.  In the present posting I will review the rationale and the results of these "treaty related" agreements, but also focus on the recent agreements with Samsung of Korea based on specific land claims in two Townships in Haldimand County - South Cayuga and Dunn.

The picture below shows what a typical "turbine field" looks like once these metal behemoths have invaded our rural landscape.  They have spread across Southwestern Ontario like a rapidly proliferating black mold, and have now infiltrated the Grand River watershed lands.  In my opinion these additions to our natural landscape are unnecessary since we are blessed with clean hydroelectric power from the north and from Niagara Falls, from natural gas plants (many now dismantled by the Provincial Government in what has become a huge scandal), and clean coal fired generators with scrubbers.  One may also include the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities here. The reason for the recent shift away from all these sources is politics.  "Green energy", which includes these towers and solar panel "farms", are seen as producing "clean energy", as opposed to the previously named alternatives.  Some politicians have been keen to embrace this concept, and have slipped into bed with corporations that build the technology seen as the "wave of the future".  The article found here includes some very poignant local examples of the downside of "going green" via wind turbines.



The citizens in Toronto are not infected with these eyesores, it is in the backyards of rural Ontarians, few in number and insufficiently organized to mount an offensive against this imposition, who are impacted directly.  But to add insult to injury, there are neighbours who are capitalizing on the proliferation of wind turbines and solar panels, without any consideration of the adverse effects on those who live in the same region.  The "neighbours" here, involved in fraud and "dirty dealings", are the Six Nations of the Grand River.


Agreements Pertaining to Lands within the Nanfan "Treaty" of 1701: 

Few have even questioned the legitimacy of transactions pertaining to property in Norfolk County (e.g., Port Dover, Port Rowan), where Six Nations claim "rights".  I suspect that, after Caledonia 2006 and other work stoppages caused by Six Nations members, power companies and governments at all levels are willing to turn a blind eye in the service of keeping the heat down - and truth and justice can be conveniently ignored.  In fact Six Nations do have a clear rationale for their actions, although it is baseless and rests on the foundation of a fraudulent deal.  Here an agreement dating back almost 300 years, although never legally recognized by the Crown, drives this assertion of "rights".  I am speaking of the so called "Nanfan Treaty" of 1701 where 20 Five Nations Chiefs alienated their claim to lands in Southwestern Ontario, obtained by right of conquest, actually genocide (complete obliteration of peoples such as the Neutral \ Attiwandaronk), and placed themselves under the protection of the British Crown. The document records their "expectation" that they would retain beaver hunting rights in this area - oddly nothing about wind turbines was mentioned.  However in 1701, actually from 1696 (and until 1784), the land belonged to the Mississauga, who had destroyed all eight Five Nations settlements on the north side of Lake Ontario, thereby dissolving any "rights" to the area that the Six Nations might wish to claim at a later date.

Thus it is irritating to some when facts get in the way of a strongly held belief, in this case among the Six Nations in their own superiority.  I was taught that my Mohawk ancestors "cleared" Southwestern Ontario of occupants (competitors in the fur trade), and that the land was kept by the Six Nations Onkwehonwe as an area in which to hunt and fish, right up until the time of the American Revolution.  I was sadly misinformed, and the truth came as a complete surprise - but the cold hard facts do not lie. The Mississauga and their allies had taken the land from the Five (now Six) Nations by conquest in 1696 and never from that point did the Six Nations challenge the Mississauga claim to land rights north of Lakes Ontario or Erie.  Thus, due to common misconceptions, it is not surprising that the Six Nations have been able to use to use a fraudulent "treaty" to assert "land rights" across Southwestern Ontario. Beliefs and false information tend to die hard.  See here for a thorough review of the evidence. 

Returning to the matter of turbines in the area encompassed by the Nanfan "Treaty", a couple of days ago I took a drive south through Jarvis to Port Dover.  It was a jaw dropping experience.  I have been away for some months and could hardly recognize the landscape, it was hugely distorted with an excess (well, one is one too many) of wind turbines with blades spinning, some in unison.  Below is a picture of the erection of one of these monsters taken from the Simcoe Reformer.

We are seeing only the thin edge of the wedge.  However, a sense of what is "on the way" can be seen in the array of turbines, situated on the Lake Erie side of Highway 6 just north of Port Dover, shown below in a picture taken by the author on 9 April 2014.



A good summary of what Six Nations will garner from asserting rights via the Nanfan "Treaty" and doing absolutely nothing (other than not protesting) in the Norfolk area can be seen here.  What follows is interesting re projections of revenue to Six Nations from one of these two projects:  According to the business plan, Prowind has invited Six Nations to be a 10% equity partner. Its contribution will be $1.8 million, which is estimated to generate revenue in excess of $3 million over 20 years.  This is small potatoes in relation to the comparable projects of the Korean industrial giant Samsung in the Haldimand Tract - more later.

However all is not a bed of roses for turbine projects in the "general Nanfan area".  In January 2013 members of Men's Fire (associated with the Hereditary Council and Haudenosaunee Development Institute) went on a "roving" protest movement around Nanticoke, as seen here, disrupting various operations in that vicinity.  The stated reason for their action was the company's insistence on the removal of an eagles nest (see picture below).  Someone more cynical than myself might say that it had more to do that the fact that the deals had been with the Elected Council, leaving the Hereditary Council out in the cold once again.



A very detailed description of every imaginable facet of the Summerhaven Wind Energy Project can be seen here.  It is situated around the town of Jarvis extending to the border of the Haldimand Tract, and down to Lake Erie between about Nanticoke and Sweets Corners.  This largely involves Walpole Township, within Haldimand County, but not within the Haldimand Tract. 

In May of 2012 there was a heated debate at Six Nations about turbines and solar panels, specifically over the Summerhaven Project near Jarvis (noted above) which was just getting underway.  In effect the Elected Council approved of this work and in principle for such projects on the Reserve.  Members of the Hereditary Council were against the Summerhaven Project and were upset that a while back Chief Montour of the Elected Council had gone on record as saying he would lie down in front of the bulldozers before he would see this in his backyard, but he had "done a 360".  See here for the article about the matter.  Well, all that changed.  The Jarvis "field of nightmares" is now well underway, and it is, in my opinion, a hideous eyesore and it saddens me that these "creatures" have so ruined the landscape.  No one is lying down in front of the bulldozers - it is full steam ahead. 

A few pictures of what is presently in place here are seen below.  Here a turbine is rather close to a house just east of Jarvis along Highway 3.  Wonder how owner feels about this.

 

 

The picture below was taken from the cemetery behind a church in Jarvis.  I am sure that the symbolic meaning is not lost on readers.

 





Belief that Consultation and Agreement with the Six Nations is Mandatory:  There is (or was) an agreement in place whereby Six Nations will be consulted, and information shared, in any project planned for the various municipalities in the Grand River watershed (and the Grand River Conservation Authority).  The reason being that, "all parties acknowledge that there are outstanding land issues in the Notification Area".  Thus the Grand River Notification Agreement was born on 3 October 1998, to be renewed every 5 years.  I am not sure whether the agreement was renewed in October 2013 as per the plan of this document.  However, this is an agreement without "teeth".  It specifically states that, "This Agreement is not legally binding on any of the Parties, ........ "  However, perception is reality.  Thus if a developer sees this agreement as having more clout than it does, they may come to the conclusion (especially if a van load of activists show up) that they do really need to consult, irrespective of the validity of the matter.  For details see here.

Recent research suggests that a "team" or "policy known as, Consultation and Accommodation Policy (CAP), see here, but you will need to scroll down the middle column to the link at the very bottom, instituted by the Elected Council as a body similar to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) affiliated with the Hereditary Council, see here, has been assembled with the goal of "accommodation" meaning developers and corporations handing over mega dollars to Six Nations (in this case the Elected Council).  Both assert "rights" in relation to the fraud known as the "Nanfan Treaty", or invalid claims to land in the Haldimand Tract ceded upwards of 170 years ago.  There is no legal reason why anyone would have to "accommodate" with either the HDI or CAP, but it seems that in order to avoid "problems" (work stoppages subsequent to the arrival of one or more vans filled with "land protectors", otherwise known as goons) who enforce the will of one of these two competing groups.  It would appear that the group involved here is CAP since the Elected Council is reaping the financial benefits ("accommodation") of "consultation" in this instance.  In fact the Elected Council are the formally recognized body to negotiate with governments, organizations or individuals since it replaced the Hereditary Council in 1924 - a controversial move that constantly reverberates even today.

However, to repeat, consultation, let alone accommodation, is not mandatory in relation to the Six Nations in Southwestern Ontario including the Haldimand Tract - it just keeps the likelihood of protesters shutting down say the construction of an industrial turbine at a minimum.

Agreements Pertaining to the "Haldimand Proclamation" of 1784:

The map below shows the array of wind projects in and near the Haldimand Tract, the boundary of the latter (Regional Road 20) is shown as a line traversing diagonally from the top left to Lake Erie with most of the Samsung GREP turbines to the right (east) in South Cayuga and Dunn Townships.  The latter boundary is the line running vertically with its southern end facing the word "Erie" seen in Lake Erie.  This township extends to the far right of the map where the Grand River enters Lake Erie at Port Maitland - and includes the Dunnville Airport lands. 



Both of these townships fall within the Haldimand Tract (and todays Haldimand County) and come under, according to Six Nations negotiators, not only the Nanfan "Treaty", but also contested land claims in the area bounded by the "Haldimand Proclamation".  The latter comprised a tract set aside for the Six Nations as compensation for lands lost during the American Revolution.  These were purchased by Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand in 1784 from the Mississauga.  The lands were granted to the Six Nations with right of "occupancy", but with all other land rights vested in the Crown.  The Six Nations were not granted the land in fee simple where an individual Indian could then sell or lease land at his or her pleasure, but rather to a group who held the land in common as was the case before the Revolution in the homeland of what is today Upstate New York.  Note that the Six Nations are not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario, only Upstate New York.  Thus if the Six Nations wished to sell parts of the Tract, they could only do so by a surrender to the Crown who in turn would issue a Crown Deed to the purchaser, and the monies would be deposited in the Six Nations Trust Fund.  By far the best resource for this information is Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Toronto, The Champlain Society, 1964.

Claim of Unceded Lands in the Haldimand Tract:  The reason why Six Nations have become a party to the negotiations between for example Samsung, who manufactures the wind turbines, the Ontario Provincial Government, and individual land owners, is linked to their claim of owning "unceded" lands in South Cayuga and Dunn Townships (as well as the fraudulent Nanfan claim).  To anyone familiar with the area, its history, and in particular its Crown deeds as registered in the Ontario Land Registry system, one might think on first pass that this is a wild desperate unsubstantiated attempt to use leverage against weak willed officials to impose their (Six Nations) will - irrespective of the facts.  Could be, but surely it is more complicated.

The evidence is as follows.  Surrender Number 38 occurred on 8 February 1834, ten years prior to the general surrender of 1844, 21 of the "Sachems or Chiefs" of the Six Nations, doth grant, bargain, sell, release, surrender and for ever yield up to "His Majesty William the Fourth", the Township of Dunn, and the parts of Moulton, Canborough, and Cayuga Townships (later split into North and South Cayuga Townships) not already surrendered.  Those who signed included Henry Brant, Oneida Joseph, Jacob Martin, John [Smoke] Johnson, Laurence Davids, William Alvis, and Jacob Johnson, all well known and respected chiefs who participated in the surrenders of the 1840s which resulted in the Reserve taking its present shape.  See, Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890, Vol.1, The Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1891, pp. 91-94.  Soon after the surrender, Crown patents were issued to purchasers for the 100 acre lots that had been surveyed by Lewis Burwell, and the deeds were registered on title, and can be found to this day in the Land Registry Office in Cayuga.  So this begs the question, how can Six Nations claim "unceded" land in a parcel that was surrendered in its entirety, even the portion including the Grand River itself, in 1834.  As an aside, this has immense implications, particularly considering the Six Nations claim for compensation for the flooding due to the Welland Feeder Canal and dam in Dunnville - for lands they had already surrendered.  Considering the $125 million dollar offer by the Federal Government for compensation for damage to lands not then owned by Six Nations, one wonders how vigilant their researchers are in scrutinizing detail - or whether politics intervened to trigger the generous offer (with taxpayer money) - which was turned down, the counter offer from the Six Nations negotiator being one billion dollars - for flooding to lands, the documents show, they did not own after 1834.  However, it is in finding an unproven sentence in one letter that Six Nations base their claim for still retaining "unceded" lands in Dunn and South Cayuga.

a)  South Cayuga Township, among the 29 land claims registered with the Federal Government by Six Nations is Number 18: "Cayuga Township South Side of the Grand River".  Admittedly the Council Minutes and the correspondence of the 1840s can be confusing to the uninitiated since the Chiefs changed their minds, and changed their options, on a number of occasions.  Occasionally a misconception can be found in those not close to the negotiations (e.g., the Superintendent General residing in Quebec City), but if one reads all of the documents, the details are very clear.  It is quite mind boggling to someone such as myself who, over a period of 35 years, has studied all of the documents related to this matter, that the researcher for Six Nations should have to reach and stretch, basically cherry pick, so much to come up with an improbable document expressing impossible decisions in order to "keep South Cayuga in the game".  The particulars of the Six Nations claim can be found here. 

Basically, the Six Nations researcher does not deny the existence of the above surrender, but asserts that, the Township of Cayuga on the south side of the River was de-surrendered by the Superintendent of Indian Affairs and reserved for the Six Nations in exchange for the Burtch Tract being excluded from forming part of Six Nations Lands.  Supposedly this unprecedented act by a Crown official was found in a letter from David Thorburn to J.M. Higginson on 18 April 1846 - but found nowhere in the Council Minutes or any other documents, nor included in the final summation of the various surrenders and description of the boundaries of the Reserve (precisely those of the Reserve of 2014).  None of the copious records of the era ever even allude to a "de-surrender".  Nothing is found which was written by either Thorburn or any other official up to and including the repeated summary of the negotiations to date found in the Six Nations Council Minutes.  Thorburn was meticulous in ensuring each detail was discussed and recorded on more than one occasion and that each time, all of the assembled Chiefs signed a copy of the Minutes.  This thorough detailing of the terms of agreement was recorded up to and including the surrender of the Burtch Tract in 1848, and it is entirely consistent with Governor General Lord Elgin's description of the Indian lands of Upper Canada in 1850. 

A "de-surrendering" as described by the Six Nations researcher, if true, would likely be an unprecedented act in the entire annals of the British Empire, and as such is thus blatantly improbable.  Thorburn would never decide after 10 years of "officially sanctioned settlement" by Europeans, to "turf them out" and pay huge compensation for the improvements they had made (nothing of this nature in the way of compensation is recorded) - by then virtually all lots and concessions were settled.  Any such action would also go against the entire premise of creating a compact reserve where all Six Nations could be settled near one another.  There is nothing what so ever in the land records (Indian Affairs or County Registry) that any such action was contemplated or taken.  So we can dispense with the "de-surrendered" claim as, tactfully, without support.

The question is, why would a competent researcher (I have known the original researcher for numerous years and know that he is dedicated and thorough in this work) make such an outlandish claim of the land being "de-surrendered"?  The only reason that makes sense to me is that it allows all the land in both Townships to be classified as "contested", and as such gives leverage in allowing the land claim to remain open and so Six Nations are able to lean on developers (e.g., turbine power companies) to "accommodate" (come up with a cash "agreement").

b)  Dunn Township.  Inexplicably, the Six Nations Lands and Resources Department considers Dunn Township to be in another category, to the point where they did not submit a specific numbered claim, but rather included it under, "Potential Claims to be Researched".  Referring to their website here, it has been labelled, "Purported Surrender No. 38, Dunn Township and parts of  Moulton, Canborough, and Cayuga Townships - 50,212 acres".  The thrust here seems to be to assert that there were errors or corruption such that monies supposed to be deposited in the Six Nations Trust Fund went astray, and financial compensation is needed to resolve this issue.

What is evident here is that at least in part, the surrenders of the 1830s noted above, especially as they relate to South Cayuga, require verification of the facts pertaining to the land surrenders of the 1840s. These are fully summarized in the report of Joan Holmes and Associates, accepted into evidence by Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Ontario in Brantford in 2009, as seen here.  It appears that the report may not have been intended for "public consumption" and was leaked.  The last time I attempted to access this report I had to use the html cached version - surely there was not an attempt to suppress the evidence?  Since by using primary source evidence the report essentially administers the coup de grace to any and all of the Six Nations land claims, it is indeed a crucial document.  I have to wonder why, 5 years after this monumental study was completely, has it not been released to the public?  Is it because at that point the citizens and taxpayers would then be apprised in one go of the bogus claims that have been made by Six Nations over the years and call into question much of what they assert (without evidence) to be true.  Politics of some description, but the public has the right to know when some group is consciously trying to pull the wool over their eyes and confuse them into believing the "party line", and in the process ripping off the taxpayers of Ontario and Canada.  Anyway, back to the turbines.

It should be noted that the above map provides a plan for the future, not what one would see today.  However, it is astounding how quickly plans become reality on the ground.  Completed turbines are primarily seen west of the Haldimand and Norfolk County borders.  However, a drive through South Cayuga and Dunn Townships will verify that construction work is well underway.

The Specifics of the Agreements Between Turbine Companies, Haldimand County and Six Nations:

Early (circa 2009) plans of Samsung to install upwards of 200 turbines on the north shore of Lake Erie are seen in the following article (viewed in full here).  Quotes follow.

The Ontario government said the two parties have been involved in "months of extraordinarily co-operative effort" toward an agreement that would involve billions of new investment, including in manufacturing facilities.

"Both Samsung C&T Corporation and the government of Ontario are pleased to confirm that efforts are progressing well toward the signing of a historic framework agreement," the government said in a statement.

"While the contents of the proposed agreement remain commercially sensitive, both parties can confirm that Samsung, one of the world's leading companies, proposes to establish a new renewable-energy business in Ontario."

Part of the plan calls for the erection of about 50 of the 200 turbines on sparsely populated forest and scrub lands belonging to Six Nations, near Dunnville, Ont., Chief Bill Montour said Sunday.

In relation to the statement which I bold printed, NO SUCH LAND EXISTS!  It is unclear whether Chief Montour is referring to lands in Dunn or South Cayuga Townships, but in neither are there any unceded lands of any description. 

An article (see here) reported that, On May 25 2012, Six Nations Band Councilor Bill Montour signed an agreement behind closed doors to create a 515-acre green energy park on Six Nations unceded lands on Sutor Rd. in Haldimand County- East of Hagersville and West of Dunnville . This will be a wind turbine power generation complex in Ontario, which will be the largest of its kind in the world.  However, Samsung C&T claims they have rights to the land because Ontario signed an agreement to lease the land to them. One problem is the 515 acre land in question is still under land dispute much  like Douglas Creek Estate Land Claim in Caledonia Ontario and Samsung did not receive permission from the traditional Haudenosaunee government in Six Nations to proceed with the project. The author of this article is seeking unity among Six Nations members to join and fight this environmental catastrophe.  While the author and I may not see eye to eye on other matters (e.g., the anti United Nations stance), with respect to the turbine matter, I am in complete agreement.

A good photo op, and the chance to put a good spin on this project just before the sod turning can be seen here.  The sod turning (actually acid producing and stomach turning) event for the Samsung "Grand Renewable Energy Park" (GREP) project took place in November 2013, as seen here.  The picture below from the Simcoe Reformer shows left to right, Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt, (former) Six Nations Elected Council Chief Bill Montour, and Korean and Samsung officials. 

Here is a description of what is planned:  Extensive wind turbine development on the west side of Haldimand has taken place over the past 12 months.  This will intensify now that South Korean industrial giant Samsung has begun work on the 250-megawatt Grand Renewable Energy Park.  The $1-billion project consists of 67 industrial wind turbines and a 736-acre solar park. South Cayuga is the focal point of the sprawling development.



Specifics of the Samsung Grand Renewable Energy Park (GREP) can be seen here.  Some pictures taken by the author 9 April 2014 of the area around the old RCAF hanger at the Dunnville Airport in Dunn Township, adjacent to South Cayuga Township, follow.





 

 

 

9 days later, on 18 April 2014, the following was observed at the same site - four completed turbines shown below taken from a position north of the RCAF hanger; with others in various stages of completion (not shown).

 

 

 

 





It is interesting to see who gets what out of the deal.  Six Nations will collect $65 million over 20 years. The province has sweetened the pot with an additional $10 million. Chief Bill Montour said his band council drove a hard bargain.  Some corporate crumbs were dropped along the way: 
Samsung also made a gift Thursday of 20 Samsung tablets to the students at Rainham Central Public School. As well, the company gave the RAF museum at the Dunnville Airport an authentic 1940 NA 64 Yale fighter-trainer. An inscription on the side says the plane “starr(e)d” in the movie Captain of the Clouds with James Cagney. Samsung donated the plane because the airport’s owners surrendered their landing and takeoff rights in exchange for hosting Samsung turbines.

So, how much will Haldimand County derive from the deal on the land within its boundaries?  One million dollars!  So 65 versus 1 million dollars, yet Six Nations does not have a single valid claim anywhere in the vicinity - yet reaps the benefits big time. 

Recently, in early 2014, there has been a recognition that the communities most effected, which would appear to be Walpole, South Cayuga and Dunn Townships, should receive some "mitigation" allotment.  Hence the Community Vibrancy Fund (CVF) has been established as follows: 

Council had previously said the intent of the vibrancy fund was to spend the majority of the money in the communities most affected. Last August, council agreed to spend 80 per cent of the CVF’s gross value of $37.9 million by 2016 in the wards affected by the green energy projects. The remaining 20 per cent could be spent elsewhere within the County.

The vibrancy fund was an agreement made between Haldimand County and the four major green energy companies in the County including Capital Power, NextEra, Samsung and Niagara Region Wind Corporation.

The contract would see the County receive about $2 million a year for the next 20 years, but in August, council agreed to borrow the money upfront and assign them to capital projects sooner.

So the areas where the turbines are in greatest profusion should in theory benefit the most with road paving projects or arenas.  However, being a bit cynical, what is to stop Council from "raiding" this fund to use in other areas of greater perceived need - such as the infrastructure for the mega scale McClung Road residential development?  See here for the article in the Sachem where the information is found.

Is it fair that Six Nations, whose territory is not being defiled, should receive the lions share of these deals?  Is there a reason why they should see a penny of Samsung money?  However fair does not factor into deals where there are "contested" land claims, even when they are only sham contested.  The bottom line is that the $65 million dollars should be going to mitigation projects in the Townships which are directly impacted - not to Six Nations who has no legitimate reason to be involved in these negotiations.  When it is proven in Court that in fact Six Nations has zero claim to this area, and has been aware of this since the 1970s and 1980s, will they be required to pay back the ill gotten gains?  Perhaps the expression, "fat chance" applies.  A thoroughly disgusted,

DeYo.



8th Anniversary of the Douglas Creek Estates "Reclamation": What Has Changed?

On 28 February 2006, a small group of Six Nations activists occupied the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) housing development at the southern entrance to Caledonia, Ontario.  I don't think that they, or anyone else at the time, could have foreseen how this seemingly insignificant protest by what was largely a small group of Six Nations women, could have escalated into an act of infamy, destroying forever the harmonious relationship between members of the Six Nations Community, and members of the surrounding Communities off the Reserve - particularly Caledonia.

Certainly, the main impetus for the events of 2006 and beyond was a claim to lands along the Plank Road.  This is what lit the fuse.  None the less, the Federal Government maintains, as it has consistently done, that there is no valid claim.  The Provincial Government is caught in the middle.  The OPP tactics are still the same, "peacekeeper" thanks to the "Ipperwash Inquiry" - to "serve and protect" went out the window in Haldimand with the "rule of law" and has yet to return to pre 2006 days.  Stuck in a rut.  Spinning wheels.  Passing the buck.  Local Haldimand County officials are powerless.  Local residents angry and afraid and wondering whether it is possible to return to normal; and even what normal is.  Driving by the site of DCE, the same mess is there as seen in 2006.  A hideous southern entrance to Caledonia.  It would appear then that nothing has changed.  At one level that is true, but upon closer inspection we see quite a few changes that are noteworthy.

I will present only a short summary of events, since there is ample data reported within the 90 postings to this blog.  However, if one wished to get a sense of what transpired between 2006 and 2010, probably the best single source of information is Christie Blatchford's book, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us, Doubleday Canada, Toronto, 2010.  In her book Blatchford focuses on the sufferings on those residing closest to the DCE, and how the rule of law disappeared, leaving them to cope in a situation where a 911 call would bring no response (safety, medical, fire). 

There are those who see Blatchford's book as "racist", and who have even prevented her from speaking at University campuses (the supposed bastion of free speech), and who are clearly afraid of, or ignorant of, the truth.  In the days since 28 February 2006, Six Nations and their supporters, the latter largely drawn from the Sociology, Political Science, and History Departments of local Universities, as well as union supporters (Canadian Union of Public Employees and others), as well as radical groups of every stripe such as the pro - Palestinian (and vehemently anti - Semitic) groups, have done everything in their power to silence "the opposition".  Anyone who challenges the perspective of Six Nations is labelled a "racist" or similar epithet.  A book which reflects the views of these leftist groups is by Laura DeVries, Conflict in Caledonia: Aboriginal Land Rights and the Rule of Law, UBC Press, Vancouver, 2011.  Instead of interviewing the local residents who suffered by virtue of the criminal behavior on the part of Six Nations radicals, she interviewed the radicals themselves, apparently perceiving that they were long aggrieved victims merely defending "rights" which had been ignored by the Federal Government.  The events were then woven into various theories (actually dogma) used by academics to radicalize students and indoctrinate them into politically correct leftist ideology. 

A more "user friendly" effort, with ample pictures, and presenting the Six Nations viewpoint is Lynda Powless, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictorial History, Turtle Island News, Ohsweken, 2006.  It provides what some might say constitutes a very radical take on the land rights controversy - heavily laden with "rights" and nothing about "responsibility".  So, comparing the first work with the latter two, we see the operation of very different perspectives.  

What has occurred between 28 February 2006 and 28 February 2014 is part of the historical record, but the question here is, in 8 years what has changed, what has been resolved, what is still outstanding?  The discussion can be divided into two parts:  Effect on Haldimand County, and effect on Six Nations. 

Haldimand County - Living Under a Cloud of Uncertainty:  In the Sachem issue of 20 March 2014, is found an article entitled, Douglas Creek Estates: The economic impact eight years later (p.4).  The reporter, Jennifer Vo, subtitles the article, While some see reason for optimism, others see only uncertainty eight years after Caledonia land claim protest.  The article focuses on the climate for economic development.  While Major Ken Hewitt talks about being, "positioned well for the future", he also notes that there are "challenges".  It is expected that the Mayor is going to try to put a positive spin on things, that is his role.  It is, however, difficult to dismiss the reality of people who have been unable to sell their property due to the fear that the land title is not secure.  The owner of the "Grand Island Bar B-Q" falls into this category since his property is under direct threat of action by Six Nations since they registered a claim (effectively a lien) against his property in Dunnville in 1995.  To this date, the matter is unresolved leaving the owner in the lurch. 

More common are the owners of property that has yet to be developed.  There is always the veiled threat of "action" should they build anything on their property.  As an extreme example, Gene Ruzsa abandoned a 56 acre proposed residential property development in 2006 as the implications of the events in Caledonia became clear.  As a consultant he now advises his customers to look elsewhere for investment opportunities, "because the land claims are not settled".  He realizes that developers could seek "anticipatory injunctions" against work stoppages by Six Nations, but that the way things work today, some sort of "agreement" with them is needed before any guarantee of "smooth sailing" can be expected.  Uncertainty is a definite buzz killer for anyone contemplating relocating to Haldimand, and developers worry that Ontario will not stand behind its Land Registry title system.  As Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett has said, "Unfortunately, people in the housing business have lost confidence that their buying and selling of land has the full support of government when there's native activists involved".  There are no such issue in for example Oakville or Welland.  Their fears are justified in that Lonny Bomberry, the Six Nations Lands and Resources legal advisor has said, "Our mandate is to be accommodated - whatever that accommodation turns out to be".  Hence, uncertainty.  Whether the Lands and Resources people have a leg to stand on (they don't) is of no consequence, they know that they can halt development by sending in a few vans full of "activists" and the message is received, something like, "play the game by our rules and the problems will vanish, your choice".  The law is irrelevant here if it is not applied via injunctions and fines levied against the illegal protesters.

Mayor Ken Hewitt is very clear in his expectation that the Crown (Federal Government) needs to take responsibility for "accommodation" or whatever is needed to get legal issues settled.  He said, "As a county, [accommodation] is not something that we support".  Furthermore, "I don't believe that development or communities or infrastructure should be held at ransom to achieve those goals".

Mayor Hewitt is entirely correct.  It is the Federal Government whose responsibility it is to state emphatically that there is no validity to any of these land claims.  Their researchers know the specific dates when each township or part of same was ceded (all before 1848) and could provide the references to the Council Minutes where the relevant land was discussed and agreement reached (in the 1840s).  So to this very day, although the land was alienated, sold, surrendered, ceded or however you want to express it, the perception is that it is still "contested".  If there is one outstanding matter related to these parcels of land, it is how the monies derived from their sale were dispersed - which would involve a study of the Six Nations Trust Fund - a prodigious task that may have already been completed by the Federal Government - it would be helpful to know one way or the other.

8 years later the residents of Haldimand have no reason to trust that the Ontario Provincial Police will come to their assistance - it is more likely now in 2014, but not assured.  There is a very evident two tiered policing system with a double standard with one set of rules for natives and another for locals.  If your are a local, and you are at a rally over say illegal smoke huts or the right to carry a Canadian flag in front of the DCE property you will be hauled away in a paddy wagon.  Meanwhile no native is ever arrested at a rally, and there are Confederacy and Mohawk Warrior flags everywhere in the vicinity of DCE.  No, it is not fair.  Something about the rule of law, one law for all - that goes out the door in Haldimand and that has not changed.  If anyone doubts that this double standard exists, please read the book by Gary McHale, Victory in the No-Go Zone: Winning the Fight Against Two-Tier Policing, Toronto, Freedom Press, 2013.

Six Nations - Empowerment Due to a Series of Enablers:  Right now there is an up side and a down side (Haldimand County, entirely down side) to the circumstances in which they now find themselves 8 years after they decided to "reclaim" DCE.

First, the down side.  Since 2006 a festering problem at Six Nations has become much much worse.  While in the early days of the Six Nations tenure on the Grand River there were swirling cross currents of factionalism (e.g., Upper vs. Lower Mohawk; Christians vs. Longhouse), after 1924 the primary factions were the Elected and the Hereditary Councils.  While in 1924 the Elected Council was recognized by the Federal Government as the legitimate governing unit, the Hereditary Council still held considerable power with the ability to influence circumstances at Six Nations.  The intransigence of the two, never being able to see eye to eye and always disagreeing on just about any matter, now pales in comparison with the number of "new groups" that have emerged since 2006, each claiming to represent this or that segment of the population (or the whole population).  So now we have the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC), the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), the Mohawks of the Grand River (formerly the Mohawk Workers, or Kanata Mohawks), the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), Men's Fire, Women's Fire and so on. 

2006 showed Six Nations that they could push the envelope, which they did at every opportunity, and frequently no one would say no.  During the negotiations with the Ontario Government subsequent to the "reclamation", former Premier David Peterson hammered out a deal where Six Nations would get 250 acres, the former Burtch Correctional Centre, on lands that were "contested" (Burch Tract, ceded in 1848).  The only stipulation was that the Caledonia barricades be removed, the burned out big rig trailer removed and the site made to look less like a war zone.  Well, 8 years later the barricades are still in place, and last I heard the Government was cleaning up the Burtch site of contaminants before giving it to Six Nations.  Actually a problem surfaced here.  The Government did not know who to hand over the land to since the then "Mohawk Workers" claimed it was Mohawk land and that they had the rights to the property.  A swirling ball of confusion.  The various levels of governments have maintained that due to the infighting / factionalism at Six Nations they did not know who to negotiate with.  On paper it was SNEC, but HCCC was asserting their rights.  For a while, the former backed away but legally the government could not turn over assets to a body that was not legally recognized.

In the meanwhile, emerging out of the HCCC was the HDI with the Interim Director perhaps the most radical of the radicals, and the legal advisor someone claiming to be Mohawk, but who is unknown to most in the Community.  Anyway, they went about strong arming developers into paying an application fee to ensure there would be no work stoppages (yes that is what the Mafia does), and collected monies that have disappeared into a fund or who knows what.  They even claim the right to send monitors to every archaeological site within the (fraudulent) Nanfan Treaty area (basically all of Southwestern Ontario), in addition to the "official" monitors from SNEC who were trained by the archaeological regulatory body in Ontario.  More money please.  Also any development in this area such as an expansion of Hydro One's transmission lines, or the establishment of wind turbines, all require HDI approval (they demand to be consulted - as their right).  Recently they have been hampered by Court injunctions and fines imposed due to illegal work stoppages in Brantford, Cayuga and Hagersville.  The recent fines have been so stiff, and the individual protesters are responsible for paying, that HDI may be faltering on this score. 

It appears that post 2006 no one was going to ask the "hard questions", such as the validity of the Nanfan Treaty or the claim of ownership of unceded land up and down the Haldimand Tract.  Thus every time, for example, a power company was about to begin work (e.g., at Port Ryerse well outside the Haldimand Tract) on setting up wind turbines, Six Nations would demand to be "consulted", sending in vans of goons if necessary, and typically the companies yielded to Six Nations rationalizing that the payouts were just the cost of doing business.  As to lands within the old Haldimand Tract boundaries, Six Nations had the gall to claim that Provincially owned land (originally expropriated from the farmers in whose family the land had been for generations), and that around the old Royal Canadian Air Force base in Dunnville, was all unceded land.  It was ceded in the 1840s but once again, it was probably perceived that "making a fuss" by taking the matter to Court would only result in bad publicity and Court costs so everyone (Provincial Government and developer such as Samsung) just ponied up and now one sees clusters of huge earth movers and a constant stream of gravel trucks behind the old hanger at the former RCAF base.  No mystery as to what will rise toward the sky in a few months.

Since 2006 Six Nations members have learned that they can often claim land owned by third party legal owners, they can make the lives of the owners or residents entirely miserable by harassing them with ATVs sans mufflers, using high powered spotlights, requiring Canadian citizens to show Six Nations passports to access their own lands, issue arbitrary curfews to locals, and the Ontario Provincial Police are brought to a standstill due to policies arising out of the "Ipperwash Inquiry".  Any attempt by local residents to gather and defend themselves or their neighbours will bring forth a thin blue line of OPP officers who will face the local residents.  So in the crazy world of this area post 2006, the OPP are there to protect the Six Nations and their Communist and other supporters - actually facing the locals - meaning that they are the designated potential perpetrators.  Thus the OPP act as enablers, allowing activists to basically do what they want, and like little children, keep pushing, testing the limits - there are no limits outside of serious assault (e.g., Sam Gualtieri who was left permanently brain damaged by protesters who broke into his daughter's home and beat him unconscious).  Six Nations have learned that they can laugh at the residents, taunt them, disrespect and disobey police officers, and even shout profanities in Court (as in Cayuga) where normally talk above a whisper results in ejection by the bailiff.  Six Nations at the trial of a protester, different standard, no response from the Court.

Since 2006 some Six Nations have used the opportunity (since there will be no consequences) to set up illegal smoke huts (selling contraband cigarettes), and unregulated food establishments (no permits, no inspections) on private property (e.g., Hydro One land).  The flaunting of the law goes on because it is not challenged.  Any challenges tend to be limp wristed and without teeth (e.g., the ability to shut down an illegal "restaurant").

So now around here Six Nations are in the driver's seat - although Bill C-10 which will crack down on contraband tobacco will have a serious adverse impact on Six Nations, and despite all the bluster, there is nothing they can do about it.

The irony is that prior to 2006 Six Nations had a lot of support in relation to land claims, if not locally, at least among those far enough away not to be able to see that they are not victims.  Now support is dwindling, and the Federal Government has now come out with direct statements that there is no valid claim over land, it was all ceded in the 1840s.  Also they nor their Provincial counterparts will have nothing to do with expropriating land owned by a private third party.  The only thing left is the claims over "costs" - money, that may have been misappropriated from the Six Nations Trust Fund 170 or so years ago.  Since 2006 the Federal Government attempted to settled a claim about flooding of Six Nations land in the 1830s by the Dunnville Dam and Welland Feeder Canal.  Some seem to forget that by the mid 1840s none of this land belonged to Six Nations.  At any rate, the Federal Government offered to settle this for about $125 million dollars!  Incredibly the offer was rejected by the legal council for the HDI with the counter demand for one billion dollars!  Recall that the legally recognized body at Six Nations, SNEC, had turned over land negotiations to HCCC, whose activist arm the HDI took it upon themselves to speak for all Six Nations.

It appears that this was the time for a missed opportunity for Six Nations.  Due to the circumstances they had a great deal of leverage to obtain redress for matters that stand on a shaky leg, but they could have used the desire of all levels of government to show that they were acting in good faith and "cashed in" - the best example being the "Feeder Canal" claim.  Now that door has been effectively closed, and millions if not billions of dollars are likely now out of reach.  Considering the mega dollars in costs to the Canadian taxpayer resulting from events of 2006 to 2014 (Caledonia was known as "Cashedonia" to the OPP officers who were paid big overtime dollars), it is truly amazing that citizens are not going to question the disbursement of these funds.

Another area where Six Nations had an opening to work with local developers to obtain funding for projects that will be difficult to make fly otherwise - lost.  An example, the McKenzie Meadows Development across the road from DCE.  Here last year representatives from SNEC had quietly worked with the developer and hammered out a deal which would see money from each unit constructed on the site go towards a language immersion school.  The school would have addressed the wishes of the most "conservative" element at Six Nations (HCCC) for more language (Mohawk and Cayuga) and culture instruction in the curriculum.  The group heading this initiative had three open meetings for Community members to provide feedback, and despite the dismal turnout at each of these well advertised events, HCCC supporters (who would ironically have been most likely to benefit from this endeavor) ensured that the deal was cancelled.  It all seems so self - destructive.

Hopefully if there is a concept of justice which does apply in Haldimand, the true costs to taxpayers arising from events of 2006 to 2014, and the payouts from developers for unwarranted costs arising out of assertion of fraudulent Nanfan Treaty rights, and from lands that were ceded in the 1840s, will be tallied up.  Then when the matter of potential Six Nations Trust Fund irregularities dating back to the 1830s (Grand River Navigation Company claim) are assessed, that the taxpayer costs are deducted from any monies owed.  One wonders whether it would be wisest to simply dispense with all claims to this or that dating back 170 years.  It is highly likely that when all is tallied that Six Nations owes many millions of dollars back to the Canadian taxpayer - with interest.  It is the old can of worms problem, and the solution is sometimes to "let sleeping dogs lie".  Does one really want to "awaken the sleeping giant" and in the process be in debt up to the collective eyeballs.

Some Afterthoughts:  The date of 20 April 2006 is another which will go down in history - actually it was even more significant.  It is the date of the failed OPP attempt to oust the protesters (who had been causing a great deal of harm especially to those who lived in the south end of Caledonia), and the "operation" was an abject failure.  If only, if only ..................... if only a local person was there and would remind them that nothing will work this close to the Rez unless Stirling Street and the 6th line are blocked so reinforcements would be unable to arrive.  The sheer mass of protesters doomed the OPP action.  It is interesting that the above Lynda Powless said that this was, "the day that the peace died".  That is true, but there is so much more.  All that can be read in the "Reclamation" book is accolades of pride in what Six Nations accomplished.  Indeed, even old foes came together, overcoming the bane of political life at Six Nations - factionalism.  Unity, at least for one day.  But at what cost?

I think it worth noting that despite the wanton destruction of property, and the physical and psychological abuse doled out to the residents of Haldimand, not one voice has been heard uttering the words "sorry" or "regret".  Considering the magnitude of the circumstances and their effect on Haldimand, this is indeed a very telling observation.  The citizens of Haldimand are victims, Six Nations do not necessarily deny this, with the anger more properly directed toward the Ontario Provincial Police (who initiated the botched raid), the Provincial or Federal Governments - but it is friends, neighbours, relatives who have borne the brunt of the conflagration.  No one in authority at Six Nations has the decency or common courtesy to acknowledge that those most directly impacted were those who deserved nothing like what was dished out to them.  Local residents were targeted not just by thugs, and outside agitators but by supposedly responsible prominent members of the Six Nations Community - there are scars that will never go away - I cannot for a minute believe that if the tables were reversed that the residents of Haldimand would have behaved in such a callous manner.  Why, under these circumstances should there be forgiveness.  There is no apparent remorse.  You don't forgive someone who doesn't acknowledge that they did anything wrong. 

DeYo.