It appears that the fate of the group of protesters facing a very stiff fine for engaging in illegal work stoppages in Brantford in 2008 and 2009, has been revealed. Of course, since we are talking about Six Nations, and political implications, it is going to be complex and bring to light the inherent factionalism which permeates virtually every facet of dealings at Six Nations. To those of us who do not attend Elected or Hereditary Council meetings (only reporters tend to be present), news of a settlement in the offing in the above matter (5 years after the Court Injunction and trial) was something of a surprise. Recent articles from each of the two Reserve newspapers shed light on the matter - and highlight the immense divisions dogging everything in that quarter.
Article in Two Row Times: It is apparently a surprise to just about everyone that the City of Brantford was offered a settlement in this case dating back to 2009. This according to an article, Brantford accepts $125,000 injunction deal, "Two Row Times" (TRT), April 9th, 2014, p.2.
As a review of this matter, after numerous work stoppages at various construction sites in Brantford, the developers succeeded in obtaining an injunction against the Six Nations protesters (or "land protectors"), and as a consequence a series of well known activists, along with the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), which is an arm of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), including its director and the lawyer for this group (HDI), faced the prospect of coming up with the cash to pay a very stiff fine.
However, what is important to note is that the Court, thanks to the Indian Act of 1876, is unable to garnishee wages or in any way secure assets of the persons engaging in illegal acts as long as those assets are located on the Reserve. Specifically, Section 89, states that, the real and personal property of an Indian or a Band situated on a reserve is not subject to charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a Band. Thus an Indian can commit an indictable act and expect only jail time (if that) but will not have to pay any fine levied in the case as long as they ensure that all assets are kept on reserve. If it seems unfair, and as if a double standard is being applied, that is correct, a non - Indian would have their wages garnisheed and their house sold or whatever it took to obtain the full amount of the fine, or a settlement for what they might reasonably have the ability to pay (by throwing themselves on the leniency of the Court).
I have blogged about the original circumstances and the judgment of Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford in 2009. The amount levied as a fine was initially $1.2 million, reduced to $350,000 plus interest against well known activists Floyd and Ruby Montour, some lesser known individuals, "John and Jane Doe", as well as Hazel Hill the (then interim) director of the HDI and Aaron Detlor the legal council for the HDI. All along it was realized that only the latter two could be expected to have assets sufficient to pay a fine of this extent. The HDI has for years been raking in thousands upon thousands of dollars by a mafia - like racket where developers are tapped on the shoulder to pay an "application fee" to permit the development of their own land (registered and on title in the Ontario Land Registry system). The going rate was typically from $3,000 to $7,000 and to avoid trouble (work stoppages when a van load of goons arrived and would keep equipment from reaching the site). Many developers thought it prudent to "play the game" and cave in to the extortion - like behaviour since there was little chance of any law enforcement body protecting their interests. Since the "Ipperwash Inquiry" following the death of Dudley George, the Ontario Provincial Police, to avoid another embarrassing repeat of Ipperwash, have engaged in "peacekeeping" actions, not law enforcement. If developers tried to legally remove the "protesters" trespassing on their land, even with a Court order, the OPP would side with the protesters and ensure that legal owners or their representatives faced arrest if they tried to go about their business when "protesters" were present. The only recourse to those who refused to pay was to obtain a Court injunction (pre-emptive or post facto). It is the role of the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce the injunction and at least take the offenders off site to be booked at the local OPP detachment - however this is not the actions taken by our "peacekeepers". Developers might expect some assistance from the OPP as long as the numbers of protestors are small, and hoards of Six Nations reinforcements unlikely to arrive (as happened thanks to the proximity of the Reserve via 6th Line and Stirling Street at the Douglas Creek Estates "reclamation" in Caledonia 2006). Generally, since 2006, when an Indian action is involved, we have only seen the Ontario Pathetic Police in Haldimand County.
The reporer in the above noted article noted that it is unknown who will actually pay the $125,000. Apparently the Montours knew nothing of the deal, and according to the reporter, the fact that they have not been kept in the loop is troublesome to say the least, adding that, One of the premises of the HDI is consultation and what is obvious here is the complete lack of transparency concerning this settlement offer. Apparently the City of Brantford lawyer, Kimberley Farrington, was herself surprised that an offer was made to settle as they had held 'faint hope' any monies would be recovered.
The only entity in a position to pay the fine is either the HDI (swollen with, what some might say, are its ill gotten gains), or its lawyer, who as a member of the Ontario Bar would be required to pay debts owed or face disbarment. To the present author this lawyer, Aaron Detlor whose summary legal profile is seen here, is a man of mystery. It is not clear whether he is a Band Member or not. The Mohawk Nation News calls him a "non-native ambulance chaser" - see here. Apparently he took some proactive steps to ensure that his assets off reserve could not be touched, selling his house in Toronto in 2013, and placing all of his recoverable assets on the Reserve. Realistically the only one who would seen to have any reason to settle is the one with the most to lose, Mr. Detlor. If disbarred, he would no longer be a lawyer with a license to practice in Ontario. Clearly this whole HDI shtick is not the "cash cow" that was the case in the years immediately following the Caledonia 2006 situation, when the HDI came from nowhere to enter the ranks of the many groups at Six Nations claiming to represent Six Nations in this or that situation with developers, government or whomever. Mr. Detlor had previously hoped that the "Community" would pick up the tab for the fine. Perhaps this is true, but that would pose problems for whomever was anteing up since being invisible is only going to open the door to more and more questions. To the present author, initially it did seem most likely that the person with the most to lose would pick up the tab, whether with infusion of cash from HDI or not could only be a matter of speculation.
The reporter of the above article stated that, Having the City of Brantford able to collect funds from the HDI is not fundamentally different than the City collecting from the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council itself. The author then makes a very interesting comment which is worth quoting in full:
How and why is this being allowed to happen?
The precedent set forth here could feasibly cripple Six Nations' efforts to protect its interests on lands across Brantford and the Haldimand Tract if a municipal corporation can pass laws to effectively circumvent treaty rights, the Federal government's Indian Act and our structures of governance.
The big question that is yet unanswered, is who really made this offer and under what circumstances?
The answer was soon to come, via an article in the competing Reserve newspaper.
Article in Turtle Island News: It is possible that my guess / surmise was at least partially or wholly wrong. In "Turtle Island News" (TIN), April 16, 2014, p.4 there is an article, "Brantford injunction settlement may have sparked libel suit", where we find that the plot thickens. Apparently Branford officials disavow of ever having spoken to the reporter in the above article, and thus in essence revealing confidential information. Here, Brantford city council is investigating how legal documents outlining a settlement of the Brantford-Six Nations injunction case were leaked to an area newspaper that may also be facing a libel suit. Thus it seems that the reporter, and "Two Row Times" may become embroiled in a legal suit.
There are two parties who are allegedly upset with the reporter and the newspaper, the Brantford city council, and the Haudenosaunee Development Institiute (HDI). The latter, a wing of the Haudenosaunee Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) are, "considering a libel suit". The reason, since the HDI agreement lacked transparency (an accusation made by multiple individuals multiple times including the reporter for TRT), and that their actions were "troublesome". There is an old expression, "if the shoe fits .......... ". Apparently, according to the Director of the HDI, the reporter also "exposed my family to ridicule and hurt", by revealing personal financial information. I am not sure is if there is a hypersensitivity here, or a hidden agenda, but the present author cannot see this sort of information anywhere in the article in Two Row Times. Bear in mind that the author of the Turtle Island News is the editor of TIN, an avowed supporter of the HCCC, and that Two Row Times is a newspaper in direct competition with TIN.
The TIN article also reports that it is the HCCC who will be footing the bill, with nothing coming out of "community money", largely because five of those charged where in fear of losing their homes, pensions and being in financial distress. This despite the fact that no one can come after assets on the Reserve, thanks to section 89 of the Indian Act. The two lawyers informed of the acceptance of the settlement offer were Aaron Detlor of the HDI council, and the lawyer for two elderly activists well known to everyone hereabouts. Apparently Detlor had informed the HCCC that all was lost and that the City of Brantford "was seeking $1.2 million in costs". The HDI Director explained that, the money will come from administration fees the HDI has been able to raise through its programs, and not from any monies received from developments. However, where the "administration fees" were found is not explained. Apparently the Federal Government and the City of Brantford were about to launch, "a plan of litigation against the Haudenosaunee". Furthermore, the Director of the HDI has concluded that the article in Two Row Times, "is jeopardizing the rights of the Haudenosaunee", and could "cripple efforts to recover lands". The present author is unable to understand the rest of the concerns and rationale being expressed by the Director of the HDI, against the City of Brantford, the Federal Government, or the reporter of the TRT, so I will leave things here. One wonders if the whole matter boils down to the reporter (JW) stating the obvious, which in turn touched a nerve in the Director of the HDI who has been under considerable criticism; and HDI may have become redundant (obsolete) now that the Elected Council's version of the HDI, the Consultation and Accommodation Policy (CAP) with their own lawyer, a Community member, Lonny Bomberry, is up and running and has made deals with the big players such as Samsung.
Response by TRT to the Accusations in TIN: In responding to the threats of a libel suit made against the newspaper Two Row Times by the Director of the HDI (supported by the Hereditary Council), Elected Council member Helen Miller wrote a letter to the editor wherein she questions the Director's stated reasons for acting to effect a settlement in the above case. She goes on to say that the assets of those who reside on the Reserve cannot be touched. The only one vulnerable is the HDI lawyer, Aaron Detlor, and, the only butt the CC [Hereditary Council] is protecting is Detlor's butt. Councilor Miller also notes that the Hereditary Council has changed recently, and not for the good since the HDI took over the helm. She also questions why the Clan Mothers and Chiefs haven't had community meetings to update all on the development deals "negotiated" but the HDI, with everything shrouded in secrecy. Furthermore, At this point in time the HDI/CC still hasn't accounted to the community for any money generated from the development deals or the fees charged to developers. Neither has there been any accountability as to where the 'administration' money comes from. People often ask: 'Who is funding the HDI?' Councillor Miller speculates that due to the apparent close relationship between the Hereditary Council and HDI with the Provincial Liberal Government of Kathleen Wynne, perhaps this is the source of the administrative funding.
It is interesting that Councillor Miller chose to publish her letter in TRT, not in Turtle Island News which is highly supportive of the Hereditary Council. One wonders if the former is aligning itself with the Elected Council and the latter with the Hereditary Council so each newspaper has a different "flavor".
Response of TIN to the Continued Infighting Concerning the Injunction: The Editor of TIN, in an Editorial of April 23, 2014, p.6, talks about how the, fur has been flying over unsubstantiated claims that the Confederacy Council is somehow jeopardizing Haudenosaunee sovereignty by paying a $175,000 court fee imposed on the community by a provincial judge, who was way out of his league in imposing it in the first place. The statement is not supported by anything but belief. Justice Harrison Arrell was given the task of stopping illegal work stoppages, and he did that with a remarkable degree of success. The statements of the Editor seem to come perilously close to libel - but I am not a lawyer. It is the opinion of the Editor that the reason that the key to understanding the reasons for effecting a settlement in the matter was that the HDI were a named party in the Injunction, as well as John and Jane Doe of Six Nations. In her opinion, the entire court fight was really a move to get rid of the Confederacy's department and leave the Confederacy once again without the staff to help push its land rights case in Canada. In addition, according to the Editor, the Confederacy, led the talks that brought down the barricades and brought back Burtch before the talks stalled when the [Elected] band council walked from the table and has yet to provide a reasonable answer for walking. The whole matter of the Burtch lands will be the subject of a later posting.
The Editor of TIN eventually got to the point in saying that, What paying the bill will do is alleviate pressure on Six Nations people living off reserve whose holdings could be garnisheed (pensions by the way can be) or confiscated to pay the bill and let's remember there are over 15,000 band members living off reserve who make up the John and Jane Doe named in the lawsuit. Also, It was about helping the people. To suggest it was anything else or to try to claim it was only to benefit Detlor who may live off reserve is in fact libelous since it accuses Detlor of misuse of community money to pay his own legal fees which has no basis in fact or truth and as such damages his reputation. Since the HDI is about as transparent as a wall of granite, I am not sure how the Editor can come to such a firm conclusion. Irrespective, the bottom line according to the Editor is that, The Confederacy has no way of knowing if the city would attempt to take the assets of Haudenosaunee living off reserve. Should not Detlor know whether it is possible or likely that the Corporation of the City of Brantford would or could in fact come after assets of people who for example live in Toronto to pay for a situation in Brantford - is John and Jane Doe really some sort of coded warning to all Six Nations people wherever they happen to live? Detlor is a lawyer called to the Bar in Ontario. He should know the answer - however he is the mystery man, whose ties to the Community are a big question mark. His agenda here is a matter for speculation since there is nothing on record that would clarify things. So the Editor guesses, and the present author guesses, but do either of us really know? The statement on the cover page to TRT (9 April 2014) that, It is unclear who exactly is paying the costs of the settlement is, at this point, entirely correct. Some party or parties associated with the Hereditary Council would be about all one can say with reasonable certainty.
While the Director of the HDI may have concerns, there are a lot of issues of an even wider ramification. What this whole business brings to the surface is the gross double standard allowing Six Nations to hide behind the Indian Act since there may not be any consequences to a protest which cripples developers. All they need to do is to retreat back behind the walls of the Reserve boundary, and they are safe - using laws meant to protect them. Instead they may, sometimes, with impunity create havoc in the surrounding community. Perhaps the Indian Act needs "amending" - or gradually withdrawn in order to ensure that all Canadians are equal in the eyes of the law. Right now that is just a sick joke where, as with the approach used by the Ontario Provincial Police, there is one approach for Six Nations, and another for other locals in the vicinity.
If one views this through the lens through which Caledonia residents must look, it is eminently unfair - there is no other way to see the matter. If, next time, the City of Brantford (or County of Haldimand) were to use the law of the land, and work with the Federal Government, there is a real prospect of recovering "costs" which may be in the millions of dollars. In the above case the settlement reached cut short this step in relation to the Corporation of the City of Brantford. Perhaps the next time there will be no settlement, only the full weight of the law applied fairly and without prejudice. At some point, it will be necessary to tally up all of the costs associated with the Six Nations Community action of 2006 and beyond in relation to Caledonia, Here, with a Court case that may go all the way to the Supreme Court, and all of the facts laid out on the table, the Province, Federal and local governments stand to recover multi millions of dollars in what would be a just and fitting example to those who would flaunt the law and cause irreparable damage to innocent parties such as citizens of Caledonia who by chance happened to live in proximity to the Douglas Creek Estates.
Long Term Solution - All Assertions of Sovereignty, Treaty Rights, and Land Claims must go to Court - Not the Negotiating Table: I make no bones about it, I would desperately like to see the whole matter go to Court with every shred of evidence brought to bear on the task of determining the truth. If one only seeks the truth, then the robust facts will speak loudly, and they will drown out the thin data that Six Nations could bring to Court - I have seen it and it simply would not measure up. In the above Turtle Island News Editorial of 23 April 2014, the Editor said that the HDI had followed the wishes of the Hereditary Council (HCCC), and did not take the documents or treaties or wampums into court that could have saved them all. That would have been a very unlikely scenario. In fact Justice Arrell asked for a report by a treaty and historical research team in Ottawa, and based on the findings from the Library and Archives Canada, the RG10 Indian Affairs Papers, if the Six Nations wish to pursue land claims in Court, then they have a "very weak case".
Surely all know that based on the real evidence (not on soft data such as hearsay or "oral history" that are subject to significant biases) Six Nations will lose. I have detailed the fallacy of using the Two Row Wampum to address the matter of sovereignty; the fraud that was perpetrated by the then Five Nations in making the 1701 Nanfan request (it was not a treaty); and the indisputable fact that all of the lands claimed by Six Nations were ceded by the Chiefs in Council by 1848 (the last issue being the Burtch Tract which in the latter year the Chiefs agreed should be surrendered and sold with monies going to the Six Nations Trust Fund). See here for detailed information on the evidence pertaining to all three matters. So, bring it on, and let the facts speak - and be prepared for an unfavourable outcome that has the potential to shake Six Nations beliefs to the core. Wishing it be true does not make it thus.
DeYo.
Thursday 24 April 2014
Wednesday 23 April 2014
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.
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.
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.
Thursday 17 April 2014
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.
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).
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.
Monday 7 April 2014
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)