[IPSM] Ottawa, Six Nations Outline Positions

[fiona at resist.ca]

Ottawa, Six Nations Outline Positions

There appears to be little agreement between the two sides on
whether the former Douglas Creek Estates land was rightfully
surrendered by Six Nations or not.

By Marissa Nelson
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jan 27, 2007)

The federal government has staked out its legal position in
talks that are supposed to resolve the standoff in Caledonia.

There appears to be little agreement between the two sides on
whether the former Douglas Creek Estates land was rightfully
surrendered by Six Nations or not. This week, lawyers for the
federal government presented the Six Nations negotiators with a
13-page report that takes issue with a similar native report
made in November.

The federal report argues that if the case was brought to court,
the surrender of what was called the Plank Road lands would be
upheld. But it also stresses that negotiators must find a
resolution to the outstanding land and money grievances.

The next meeting of the main table is Feb. 8. Six Nations'
delegates are meeting today to discuss the report.

Below is a point-by-point synopsis of the two sides of the
debate, as depicted in the report.

mnelson at thespec.com

905-526-2409

Caledonia: Sides appear far apart

1. Canada

Talks in late 1844 included discussion about which lands should
be reserved and which ones near Brantford should be leased. The
leasing of Plank Road lands was never a subject of negotiations.
There is strong evidence to suggest Six Nations leaders
understood the differences between leasing and selling land.

Six Nations

The transactions related to the Plank Road Lands were meant to
be leases, not sales.

2. Canada

Meetings between the Crown and Six Nations, internal
deliberations among Six Nations people and written records of
talks in 1844 is evidence Six Nations meant to surrender the
Plank Road Lands. The Chiefs in Council confirmed in 1844 they
surrendered the Plank Road Lands including what became Douglas
Creek Estates.

Six Nations

Some Six Nations people may have dealt with the Crown in ways
not accepted by the broader community and without the proper and
full authorization of the Haudenosaunee/Six Nations leadership.

3. Canada

The transfer of the Plank Road lands to the Crown for sale to
third parties was carried out in accordance with the principles
of the day.

Six Nations

Joseph Brant intended to lease the lands so they could be
cleared. The clearing of the land would open the way for Six
Nations people to use the land for farming. Six Nations people
were having a tough time protecting land from squatters. The
desire to stop the squatting reflects their strong desire to
protect their land, contradicting any assertion they wanted to
sell it.

4. Canada

The surrender was taken in accordance with the protocols
developed in the previous century for dealings between the Crown
and the Haudenosaunee.

Six Nations

Six Nations leadership didn't have the authority to give up the
lands and the written documents suggesting a surrender were done
in English, not in the languages of the Six Nations, so it may
not accurately reflect their wishes.

5. Canada

According to Canadian law, valid surrenders are not voided by
subsequent errors in their implementation. If money was owed or
mismanaged, the First Nation may have a cause of action for
money damages.

Six Nations

Even if the land was surrendered, the Six Nations people were
never compensated for it.

6. Canada

Surrenders were not done in the same way across the country nor
were they required to be uniform in their design and content.
There is no requirement for one surrender document and the
absence of one doesn't undermine the validity of the surrender.

Six Nations

There is no surrender document for the Hamilton/Port Dover Plank
Road Lands. At the Dec. 13 and 18, 1844 meetings, no formal
surrender for sale was signed by Six Nations that would meet the
requirements governing the process.

7. Canada

The report does not express views about Grand River Navigation
Company, only the surrender of the Plank Road Lands. Even if the
Crown did systematically induce the sale of Six Nations lands,
it would not invalidate the surrender.

Six Nations

The Crown was systematically inducing the sale of Six Nations
lands and directing payments into the Grand River Navigation
Company and other Crown expenditures despite protests from the
Six Nations people. The government wanted the land to sell it
and raise money for this company. The government of the day
imposed their leadership for the guidance of the Six Nations'
investment in this company.

8. Canada

The Crown did try to remove squatters from Six Nations lands.
The Six Nations admitted they were in part responsible for the
problem of squatters since chiefs continued to make illegal
sales and leases for bits of the land.

Six Nations

The Crown breached its responsibility to protect Six Nations
lands from trespassers and instead protected non-natives who
were breaking the law.