John Paul Zronik
BRANT NEWS
The federal government stands ready to settle Six Nations land claims, but requires a willing partner at the negotiating table, Brant MP Phil McColeman said on Friday.
“Anyone pointing the finger at our government saying we are not ready to settle land claims, that is simply false,” McColeman said. “We have reached out to Six Nations through our negotiator on many occasions.
“On the (Six Nations) side, it takes willing partners and a single voice.”
McColeman made the comments during the annual Brantford-Brant Chamber of Commerce MP and MPP Breakfast at the Best Western Brant Park Inn. It was the Brant MP’s most forceful public statement on land claims since being elected to the House of Commons in 2008.
“I invite anyone in this room, or outside of this room, to tell us what (the government) should be doing differently,” McColeman said. “It’s time to be forceful on this. This affects our community.
“We need to know as a country that there is a unified voice from Six Nations at the table.”
Six Nations elected council is the federally recognized government of Six Nations, but the territory’s traditional Confederacy council operates as a parallel government and has played a significant role in land claims negotiations with the federal government.
McColeman said the Conservatives have a “remarkable” record on land claims that includes an historic $145-million settlement with the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. He also noted the government has offered settlement for two outstanding Six Nations claims.
Brant MPP Dave Levac said he doesn’t think the issue of settling Six Nations land claims is cut and dry. During Levac’s presentation at Thursday’s Chamber of Commerce event, the MPP said Six Nations has legitimate historic grievances that have contributed to the current land claims impasse.
During an interview, Levac said communication, respect and building trust will be key in moving toward resolution. He said answers will only be found at the negotiating table.
“The two cultures have to understand each other first,” Levac said. “There’s no silver bullet. There will not be a watershed moment in resolving land claims.”
During an interview, Brantford Mayor Chris Friel said the city will continue to work toward building relationships with Six Nations at the local level. The mayor said putting the condition that Six Nations speak as one voice on land claims negotiations could make it difficult to move forward.
“The relationship Six Nations has (with the federal government) is a product of their history,” Friel said. “Hopefully, with local discussions there will be a way to go forward.”
—It is pretty obvious that the way forward is by resolution between the federal government and Six Nations. If Chris Friel means there will be a way to go forward by local discussians, and he means for those discussians to be between representatives of this city and Six Nations then once more he is just muddying the water. His last sentence could mean almost anything though as discussians can happen anywhere. The rest of us do not have to understand what he means by local discussians. Vague statements might catch votes.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
4
The term land claims is a misnomer.
Quebec Governor Haldimand bought a huge parcel of land, including land along the Grand River, from the Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784. The October 25, 1784 Haldimand announcement (instrument, document) was not a treaty and was not a deed. Haldimand’s announcement (instrument) was a license for Six Nations people from New York to enter, occupy and use the Crown’s land along the Grand River and Canadian courts have said so.
In 1793, Governor Simcoe offered the Six Nations a letter patent, a deed, to land along the Grand River and for Governor Simcoe to have offered a patent (deed) to that land it must have been the Crown’s land.
Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs, however, refused to accept the 1793 Simcoe Patent (deed) so the land remained the Crown’s land.
The Six Nations cannot claim land that belonged to the Crown.
As time passed, various groups of Six Nations chiefs on various occasions surrendered use of various parcels of the Crown’s land along the Grand River back to the Crown for sale. The Crown was generous and said it would put the money from the sale of the Crown’s land into a trust fund for the Six Nations.
The Six Nations alleges the Crown did not always ensure money from the land sales went into the Six Nations trust fund. The Six Nations alleges the Crown improperly invested money from the trust fund and the Six Nations alleges the Crown borrowed money from the Six Nations trust fund and didn’t pay the money back.
The Six Nations claims cannot be claims to land. The Six Nations cannot claim land they did not buy or own and which belonged to the Crown. The Six Nations claims are not land claims. They are claims about and for money.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
4
The Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Band Council took the Canadian federal government (the big Crown) and the Ontario government (the little Crown) to court in 1995 and presented the Elected Band Council government’s statement of claims. The Crown then presented its statement of defence. After the Crown had presented its statement of defence, the parties decided to put the case in abeyance (on hold) in favour of negotiating settlements to the Six Nations claims.
The federal government receives the claims, researches the history, assesses the claims, decides whether the claims have merit and are valid and makes the offers to settle valid claims.
The Ontario government can provide documents from provincial archives and ensures policing on land where the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) has jurisdiction outside of the reserve.
According to the Canadian Constitution, the provicial government has jusridiction over land outside of the reserve so, if the federal government were to decide it wants to offer some Crown land as well as money in settlements, it has to get agreement from the provincial government to give up some provincial Crown land.
The Ontario government and municpal governments don’t settle the claims.
It is the role of the Canadian federal government to make offers to settle the Six Nations claims.
The Six Nations of the Grand River had 28 claims at last count.
Federal government negotiators offered the Six Nations of the Grand River $125 million to settle 4 claims. The Six Nations has not accepted the offer.
Federal government negotiators offered the Six Nations of the Grand River $26 million to settle the Welland canal claim. The Six Nations has not accepted the offer.
It seems like the federal government is making offers to settle claims but the Six Nation won’t accept the offers.
The federal government can’t do much if the Six Nations won’t accept the offers and won’t even take them to the Six Nations people for a decision.
Who’s fault is that? Who’s stalling now?
What can the federal government, MP McColeman or MPP Levac do about that?
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
4
That statement (any many mnay more) are just a damned outrite lie Horsnell. I was at several of the meetings where the 26 million was dicussed by the people and turned down. I was one of those who turned it down. What lies are you trying to spin Horsnell? I’m going to say it right out in print; You Garry Horsnell….are a liar! Want to take me to court for libel on this one? I’ll look forward to it!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
In my opinion, if Brantford mayor Friel and City council do make deals with the Six Nations the City could very well muddy the water.
The Brantford mayor and council cannot settle the Six Nations claims.
If the mayor and council make deals with the Six Nations, the band could get money for claims that aren’t valid. That could give the Six Nations ammunition to claim a claim is valid when not or set some precedent to suggest a claim is valid and force the federal government to pay for a claim that is not valid.
Or the six Nations could get paid twice with taxpayers’ money if a claim is valid and the band also gets money from the federal government.
In my opinion, Brantford mayor Friel and council should stay out of it or help by convincing the Six Nations to accept some federal offers and settling claims.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
“It is pretty obvious that the way forward is by resolution between the federal government and Six Nations.”
And before that, there needs to be a resolution between the struggling powers *within* the reserve.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Fche, I agree.
I believe the Six Nations does have some valid claims for money and the Crown probably owes the Six Nations a lot of money.
It think the federal government (the Big Crown) knows the Six Nations has some valid claims because the federal government (the big Crown) has accepted some claims as valid and has made some offers for money.
I think Six Nations people should understand the claims are about money and get together and bargain with the Crown in good faith and get the ball rolling by accepting some offers.
I also believe the federal government (the big Crown) should bargain in good faith and make offers that are reasonable and acceptable.
The Six Nations idea of a “Global Solution” to claims whereby the Crown pays the money it owes in installments over time might have some merit but, in my opinion, the claims should be verified before offers. After offers are made and accepted, the settlements could then disbursed as an annuity. The annuity could be increased as claims are accepted and offers ratified or the length of time for payment could be increased as claims are settled.
In my opinion, everyone has to realize the claims are complex. Everyone has to realaize not all claims are valid; valid claims will take time to resolve and the Crown is not made of money.
In my opinion, this could be worked out if Six Nations people are willing to get together and get together with the federal government to resolve the valid claims and accept offers for the benefit of all of the people of the Six Nations of the Grand River.
But everyone has to be reasonable.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
“But everyone has to be reasonable.” Sorry Garry, but you have never been one to champion “reason.” So many of your long list of past posts and mis-information have been nothing more than your opinion. Understand this once and for all; LAND must be put on the table if negotiations are to be successful. You like to say otherwise but LAND Garry, has ALWAYS been part and parcel of anything we have put to the Crown. Not in every action as some actions deal with monetary issues only, but to say carte blanche that every action is only about money is so damn mis-leading as to be shameful on your part. In your postings, you say every now and then that yes, SOME Six Nations claims are valid. To that I say, how generous of you. But carry on Garry. There are those of us astute enough to see that you look through a very small knothole in the fence.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
—I believe we are asking for a partner to negotiate with, from Six Nations about claims. When the RCMP imposed the elected band council with guns, and we have maintained the elected band council ever since with money, then we as a collective imposed on them the conditions for our own frustration. They are not all one voice because we are paying for the maintenance of the dissolution of what we now seek. In other words we have painted them into one corner and ourselves into another by splitting them up. As Dave Neumann says, the problem is irresolvable. Until the Crown stops paying for the maintenance of a second voice in their community I believe that is pretty accurate. They are a confederacy of sovereigns and we have imposed a direct challenge to their soveriegnty onto them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
“When the RCMP imposed the elected band council with guns”
Wait, who has been electing the band councils all these years? The RCMP with guns? Is the claim that the elected council does not actually represent the plurality of the people? Or that some minority dissidents that want to uphold some sort of hereditary aristocracy should be embraced instead?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
5
—I know I am not native, so this is really none of my business, but I think it is safe to say that the elected band council actually is elected by a very small percentage of the eligable voters. Please correct me if I am wrong and I will be happy to apoligise.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Yes Stephen….that would be accurate. Next election, watch the results and when you see the numbers of voters posted, compare that to the approximately 12-13,000 people living on reserve.
The “traditional” have the mindset that if they vote, it indicates that they recognize the Government of Canada as their government. Its hard for them to do that as they have categorically NEVER surrendered sovereignty and recognized the Crown as their government. IF…the traditionals could ever put aside that fear and use their vote as a tool to their benefit, you would be astounded, absolutely amazed to finally see how little support the electeds really have.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
3
—If I am right about the Elected Band Council’s lack of a plurality, then we should let the elected band council either sink or swim on it’s own, without the support of the Canadian tax-payer. If it sinks, then the Six Nations can find their voice in court, and everyone can prosper including Brantford and Caledonia.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I have never known a politician who’s true and genuine interest was for his constituents….but rather, for himself alone. Its despicable that you (McColeman) would use the Six Nations impasse to further your personal agenda. Since the mood in Brantford concerning Six Nations issues is not in our favour – never has been – your re-election may quite possibly be in the bag.
You make reference to the Elected Council being the recognized government st Six Nations but remember, that in itself is a situation that will have to be dealt with for as you recall, this council was installed at the point of a gun. There was nothing legal about that action initiated by the Government of Canada. You, and all the “rule of law” supporters conveniently turn the other way when WE call for the “rule of law. Nice how you settlers pick and choose what laws to obey and which to ignore. We’ll deal with you when (if) you get in the position you’re angling for.
The only thing you (and others) have said that I agree with wholeheartedly is. we at Six Nations desperately need….MUST present ourselves to the Crown in one unified voice! Lastly, STOP brainwashing your constituents about who is responsible for the delays in negotiations. Its one thing to scream it at the top of your voice and said enough times, people will believe it. Its another thing to actually KNOW the truth of these delays. Twist it all you wish McColeman. It won’t change the truth.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
When is your next election? I dont understand why you are saying Mr McColeman is using the Six nations land claims to further his personal agenda for re-election. Would it not better for him to show that he was the one to settle land claims or at least make progress.
Could you please tell me what is the truth of the delays?
I can see that there is great frustration on both sides. The government wants to deal with a unified Six nations voice or they many not be dealing with the wishes of the majority of the six nations people. Six nations people dont have a true council that represents them so the government is reluctant to deal with it.
Hopefully Six Nations can have a election soon and have a true elected council to represent them.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
3raser…hi,and thanks for your question(s).
ALL of our treaties are with the Crown of England (now Canada in right of the Crown) and treaties must be dealt with at the federal level. There is no way of getting around that. McColeman speaks on behalf of his government only in reference to this article. He is not a negotiator. When he says; ““We have reached out to Six Nations through our negotiator on many occasions,” he is spreading mis-information for at NO time during the negotiations following the Caledonia affair, did Ottawa ever have a “negotiator” at the table. What I mean by this is, Ron Doering had no power to negotiate. He simply was a glorified messenger boy running back and forth from Ottawa with messages with NO power to make any decisions regarding treaty matters. The ONLY way McColeman could negotiate treaty matters is if Harper officially appointed him as lead negotiator with the power to make binding decisions. His only role in all of this was to huff and puff at the media and diseminate as much dis-information as he could to tarnish Six Nations negotiator Chief Allan McNaughton who DID have the power to make binding decisions (subject to the people of Six Nations agreeing to those decisions).
Unified Six nations. Granted. We are NOT united as one voice and that’s a tragedy. We had at the time, a traditional government that had been in place and very effective until and when, in 1924, Canada in contravention of International Law, removed our traditional council from the council house in Ohsweken by force and at gunpoint. The elected council system was imposed upon on us against our will although there were some at Six Nations who asked for just that but were in a very small minority. The end result was, and still is, a divided people; Electeds & Traditional. This is the main impediment to effective negotiation. Ottawa orchestrated this and now, capitalizes on their creation by claiming we are responsible for the whole mess as they recognize only their own creation (the Electeds)as the official council. The standoff is that the ekected council supporters stand behind their council as do the traditional behind the traditional chiefs. I can’t offer up any reassurances this will be resolved any time soon. For a short period of time during and after Caledonia, it seemed both councils were wlling to forge some kind of workable lliason and I was so hopeful as that has always been my dream, to see them working hand in hand for the benefit of our people. Where they stand with each other today….I’m not sure.
Last….yes, offers have been brought to us and quite simply, were not reasonable offers by any stretch of one’s imagination. I do however, thank you for your good wishes. I, like you, hope for the best…..soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
N8VSON, thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
N8VSON, thank you for taking the time to answer all my question
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
N8VSON, prove to us the Six Nations got ownership of the land along the Grand River after the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) surrendered it to the Crown according to the 1701 Nanfan Treaty and after the Crown bought it from the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
4
Garry, I have no desire to prove anything to you. If you want “proof” then you know who to see at Six Nations. You know very well who our extemely competent researcher is and he can provide you with precisely that which you ask for. I have none of these proofs at hand – nor should I – so you know where to go. (I mean that in polite terms).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0