Many Brantford residents would say they saw it coming.
Last week, a small group of Six Nations land claims protesters gathered at the First Gulf property at Wayne Gretzky Parkway and Henry Street in a display of opposition to development taking place on the site. A Leon’s Furniture Store and Harvey’s restaurant, among other projects, are planned for the property.
It wasn’t the first time land claims activists have demonstrated at the First Gulf site – which they say is Six Nations land – and we’re willing to bet it won’t be the last.
The group of four protesters – which included Ruby and Floyd Montour, well known for their role in local land claims protests during recent years – identified themselves as supporters of Six Nations Confederacy government.
“These developers need to be informed by the city that this is Six Nations’ land,” Ruby Montour said. “It is still an empty field and it will stay that way until they talk to us.”
Floyd Montour said development on the First Gulf property can go ahead as long as Six Nations receives “royalties” from each one of the entities planning to build on the site. Another protester, Six Nations resident Wes Elliott, said there is an obligation on the part of the city and developers to consult with the Six Nations Confederacy about plans for the property.
The action and statements by demonstrators offer much to consider.
First and foremost, it should be made clear that four people do not speak for the entire Six Nations community. While some members of Six Nations may support the action taken at the First Gulf property, many others do not.
Most unfortunate for Brantford is the fact that four activists can bring the problems the city has faced due to land claims protests back to the forefront. After a period of relative calm, it seems some on Six Nations are once again ready to make a statement in the City of Brantford.
It’s no secret that land claims protests have led to a local development chill. Last week’s action – even though undertaken by only four people – will serve to reinforce the notion, whether true or not, that Brantford is a less-than desirable place to build and do business.
The issues of royalties from development and consultation were also raised by protesters. With both the elected band council and Confederacy government, as well as other groups, laying claim to stake in the issue of Six Nations land claims, knowing who to talk to in an effort to prevent such actions in the City of Brantford is a cloudy issue at best for municipal policymakers.
Brantford Mayor Chris Friel is right when he says the city has taken steps to extend its hand to both Six Nations elected band council and Confederacy government. In this week’s Brant News, the mayor says the city has received “positive responses” from both councils and that meetings are being organized so Six Nations and the city can “come to an understanding on how to proceed.” That statement begs the question: Why are some Six Nations residents launching protest actions when the city is working to address land claims concerns? Is their real beef not with the federal government?
The sad part in all of this is that such protest actions will likely continue until the federal government once and for all resolves the issue of Six Nations land claims. Right now, the government is saying (through Brant MP Phil McColeman) that Six Nations needs to come to the negotiating table with a “single voice.” As we recently noted on the Brant News Viewpoint page, that will likely be a long time coming.
If last week’s action and continued inaction on the land claims file are any indication, we might be in for a long, hot summer when it comes to land claims protests at development sites in Brantford. Because the only real way to stop these incidents will be movement toward the resolution of outstanding Six Nations claims.
“Because the only real way to stop these incidents will be movement toward the resolution of outstanding Six Nations claims.”
Or enforcement of various injunctions and by-laws by the police.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
7
“Violence begets violence and it has always been the Police that start it.”
Trespassing is itself a threat of violence.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I would love Six Nations to organize 1 voice and it would be great for the gov to step up and address the claims instead of pushing them off. However in the meantime… the law needs to be enforced. As soon as the protests start, make arrests. Do not let them escalate.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Ruby and Floyd Montour and other Six Nations activists were recently protesting at the First Gulf site in Brantford. They have said the land is part of the Johnson Settlement the Six Nations did not cede to the Crown and First Gulf should consult with the Six Nations.
Governor Haldimand bought land along the Grand River from Ojibwa Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784. Then Haldimand invited Six Nations people from New York to occupy that Crown owned land. Later, the Six Nations refused to accept the 1793 Simcoe Patent, a deed for land along the Grand River.
Section 99 of a 2009 Amicus report to Justice Arrell in the Brantford injunction case says Canadian courts have held the Haldimand announcement and the Simcoe Patent were “not a conveyance of land” so the land remained Crown owned land. The Six Nations cannot claim land that belonged to the Crown.
The Holmes report, in the Brantford injunction case, says 45 Six Nations chiefs in 1844 agreed the Crown could sell land from the Johnson Settlement and other areas and 60 chiefs had confirmed that agreement by 1846.
In addition, in the 2004 Haida case, the Supreme Court of Canada said “Third parties cannot be held liable for failing to discharge the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate. The honour of the Crown cannot be delegated”. First Gulf is a third party and is not obliged to consult with the Six Nations.
Furthermore, the federal and Ontario governments have said they will not expropriate third-party land (like that of First Gulf) to settle any Six Nations’ claim and even chief Bill Montour has said the Six Nations is not after third-party land.
So why are Six Nations activists interfering with development on land that once belonged to the Crown; land to which the Six Nations refused ownership; land Six Nations chiefs agreed the Crown could sell; land First Gulf now owns; land the Crown will not expropriate; land chief Bill Montour has said the Six Nations is not after and land the Six Nations will not get in settlement of any claim?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
5
Brantford Mayor Friel and City council members could help the Six Nations get the federal government back to the negotiating table if the Six Nations is willing to speak with one voice and get its claims settled.
But, if Brantford Mayor Friel and City council members plan on making deals to share development fees, taxes or land or in any other way pay or share revenue from development with the Six Nations, the City would probably have to raise property taxes to make up for lost revenue and I don’t think Brantford businesses, citizens and voters and would like or accept that.
I think a lot of people in Brantford would become irate, protest and sue the City.
As I have said, it is up to the Canadian federal government (the big Crown), not third-party landowners/developers and not municipalities outside of the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve, to pay the Six Nations to settle its valid claims.
Landowners/developers and municipalities outside of the reserve are not obliged in any way to pay the Six Nations.
And to do so would simply encourage Six Nations activists to hit on more landowners/developers and municipalities up and down the Grand River.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
5
The thing that really bugs me about all this is that the Canadian federal government is not stepping up to the plate to tell people in Brantford and in other communities along the Grand River that the Six Nations claims are about money, not land, that the federal government is responsible for assessing Six Nations claims, determining whether the claims are valid and paying the money to settle valid claims and that landowners/developers and municipalities are not obliged in any way to make deals with and/or pay the Six Nations.
And, when Ruby says “It is still an empty field and it will stay that way until they talk to us” implying the landowners/developers must consult with the Six Nations for protests and interference to stop, that sounds like demanding something to get protection from the threat of protests and interference with development and we all know what that is in the eyes of the law.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Charter Rights, what are you talking about? I haven’t approached any government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Six Nations people protested against development on the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) land in Caledonia in February 2006. Then, Six Nations activists took over and “reclaimed” that DCE land even though the federal government has said the Six Nations does not have valid claim on that land.
The Ontario government rezoned the DCE in May 2006 so the Henning brothers could no longer build houses on their DCE land. The Hennings couldn’t build and sell houses to pay their creditors so they faced bankruptcy. Then, after bacially forcing the Hennings brothers to become willing sellers, the Ontario government bought the DCE land from the Hennings in June 2006 and allowed Six Nations activists to occupy the DCE.
In my opinion, that encouraged Six Nations activists to begin protesting at more development sites along the Grand River including Brantford and eventually prompted the illegal take over of the Kanata site our mini-DCE in Brantford.
Since then, Six Nations activists have protested at the Mohawk-Greenwich brownfield site, at the Vincorp site and recenty at the First Gulf site in Brantford regardless of the injunction and bylaws and the Six Nations wants a say in Brantford’s waterfront develpoment.
Some people say, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile and that seems to be what’s happening.
In my opinion, if Brantford Mayor Friel and City council members plan on making deals to share development fees, taxes or land or in any other way pay or share revenue from development with the Six Nations, it will simply encourage Six Nations activists to hit on more landowners/developers and municipalities up and down the Grand River.
And, in my opinion, it won’t stop the Six Nations activists because they don’t listen to municipalities, the Six Nations Elected Band Council or the Six Nations Confederacy. The Six Nations activists are rogue elements with their own agenda and the sooner people understand that and deal with it the better.
In my opinion, Brantford should be very careful. Brantford’s decisions will not only affect Brantford but also other communities.
As I have said before, the Ontario government says it stands by its land tiles system. The federal and Ontario governments have said they will not expropriate third-party land to settle Six Nations claims and chief Bill Montour has said the Six Nations is not after third-party land.
The Six Nations claims are about money and the Federal government (the big Crown) is responsible for paying money to settle Six Nation claims, not landowners/developers and not municipalities.
In my opinion, if the Ontario government says it stands by its land titles sytem, Ontario should protect landowners/developers who have title and claim to their land according to the Ontario land titles system and Brantford should make sure its injunction and bylaws are enforced to protect landowners/developers who have title to their land, claim to their land and approval to develop their land.
In my opinion, Ontario and Brantford should protect property owners not rogue Six Nations activists.
In my opinion, Ontario and Brantford should show a strong not a weak approach toward rogue Six Nations elements otherwise Brantford will pay dearly when it should not have to.
Federal government and Six Nations get together and settle the damn claims. Ontario and Brantford get off your butts and protect people who have title to their land.
We are sick and tired of the nonsense.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Charter Rights you said “They have every right under Canadian law to exercise proprietary estoppal”
Estoppel is “a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude “a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied.”
Well guesss what. In the 1835 Jackson v. Wilkes court case, a King’s Bench justice said “We have ascertained that there was a great seal in use in the Province of Quebec in 1784, when the instrument of General Haldimand bears date; that grants of land, of which few were made by the British Government before the year 1795, were made by letters patent under the great seal, and that it has been uniformly held in the courts of Lower Canada that grants of the waste lands of the Crown could not be made in any other manner”. The justice also said the October 25, 1784 Haldimand instrument (document, announcement) was no more than a “mere license of occupation”.
Source: Jackson v. Wilkes, 1835; Upper Canada King’s Bench, (O.S. 142).
I guess the courts decided that was the truth and the October 25, 1784 Haldimand announcement was a “mere license of occupation”.
And I guess, Section 99 of a 2009 Amicus Report on behalf of the Six Nations to Justice Arrell in the Brantford injunction case says “Canadian courts have held that the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent essentially conferred upon the Six Nations personal and usufructuary rights and not a conveyance of land in the English sense”.
Source: Amicus Reort, 2009; to Justice Harrison Arrell, Brantford injunction case, Ontario, Section 99, page 39.
That means the Six Nations people were simply allowed to occupy and use the Crown’s land along the Grand River and did not own the land and you Charter Rights and others should not deny it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Charter Rights, according to the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs website under frequently asked questions about what it calls land claims, the Ontario Government says it will not expropriate private property to settle claims.
Here is the link.
http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/negotiate/aboutclaims/faq.asp
Here is the quote.
Could private property be affected by a land claim?
Ontario will not expropriate private lands in the settlement of a land claim. Private property may be included in a land claim settlement if the lands are available for purchase on a willing buyer/willing seller basis.
Notice it says “will not expropriate”. That’s definite.
I wonder whether the rest you’re rant is correct?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
4
After the American Revolution, Quebec Governor Haldimand arranged to buy a huge parcel of land, including land along the Grand River, from the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians who had occupied and had been in control of that land since the late 1600s.
At a meeting at Fort Niagara on May 22, 1784, the Mississauga Indians did “grant, bargain, sell, alien, release, and confirm” to the British Crown “forever”, for the sum of “1,180 pounds, seven shillings and fourpence of lawful money of Great Britain” a huge tract of land including land along the Grand River.
Source: Indian Treaties and Surrenders, 1891 (reprinted 1996) Queens Printer, Volume 1, item number 3, page 5.
That purchase is now called the 1784 Between the Lakes Purchase and Crown representatives, Mohawk leader Joseph Brant, Six Nations Indian chiefs, Delaware Indian chiefs and Mississauga Indian chiefs were all present at that meeting and they all agreed with the sale of the land to the British Crown.
After purchasing the land for the Crown from the Mississauga Indians, Governor Haldimand issued an announcement on October 25, 1784 inviting “Mohawks” and “others of the Six Nations” from New York to move from the “American States” to the “British” and “to take possession of” (occupy) part of the Between the Lakes Purchase six miles wide on each side of the Grand River from mouth to source.
Only Governor Haldimand and his secretary R. Mathews signed that document. It was not signed by any Six Nations person and Haldimand placed his own seal at arms on his announcement, not the Great Seal of the Province of Quebec.
In the 1835 Jackson v. Wilkes court case, a King’s Bench justice said “We have ascertained that there was a great seal in use in the Province of Quebec in 1784, when the instrument of General Haldimand bears date; that grants of land, of which few were made by the British Government before the year 1795, were made by letters patent under the great seal, and that it has been uniformly held in the courts of Lower Canada that grants of the waste lands of the Crown could not be made in any other manner”. The justice also said the October 25, 1784 Haldimand instrument (document, announcement) was no more than a “mere license of occupation”.
Source: Jackson v. Wilkes, 1835; Upper Canada King’s Bench, (O.S. 142).
So, the Haldimand announcement was simply a license from the Governor of Quebec for Six Nations people to occupy Crown owned land until a final, legal land transfer could be made.
Later, in 1793, Governor Simcoe offered the Six Nations a letter patent, a deed to land along the Grand River but Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs refused to accept it so the land along the Grand River remained Crown-owned land.
And, for Governor Simcoe to have offered a patent (deed) for that land, it must been the Crown’s land in 1793.
In fact, section 99 of a 2009 Amicus Report on behalf of the Six Nations to Justice Arrell in the Brantford injunction case says “Canadian courts have held that the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent essentially conferred upon the Six Nations personal and usufructuary rights and not a conveyance of land in the English sense”.
Source: Amicus Reort, 2009; to Justice Harrison Arrell, Brantford injunction case, Ontario, Section 99, page 39.
Basically, that means the Crown simply allowed Six Nations people to occupy and use the Crown’s land, not own it.
So, Charter Rights, please explain how the Six Nations can now claim land it was only allowed to occupy but did not own and which belonged to the Crown.
How can the Six Nations claim someone else’s land?
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Watchesall, I have spoken to Ruby and Floyd and they are decent people.
As a matter of fact, I spent about 3/4 of hour talking to Floyd when Hudak was in Caledonia recently. I also spoke to other Six Nations people who were there even some carrying warrior flags.
I understand Ruby’s and Floyd’s positions. I just don’t agree with their approach and I guess some judges don’t either.
And, I can’t help it if you don’t agree with what I say but when I say it I generally provide sources, references and quotes from documents.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Thanks and I agree.
What I see First Nations doing is falling right into the predictions and warnings identified in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The government issued the caution to themselves and promptly ignored it.
..
And just a note, that defeats Horsnel’s entire argument. Six Nations holds Aboriginal title to all of Southern Ontario south of Highway 7 and it has never been surrendered or capitulated.
..
In 1763, the Royal Proclamation recognized the right of First Nations to their traditional territories and proclaimed that no land could be assumed by settlers or otherwise used without a surrender to the Crown.
..
The Mitchell Map 1757 shows that Southern Ontario south of the Ottawa River is Six Nations Territory. So at the time of the Royal Proclamation Ontario belonged to Six Nations.The Supreme Court has concluded that consistent with that Proclamation if the First Nation can provide evidence that they did not stop using their territory that they have the continued right to the land.
..
The 1776 Jefferys Composite Map clearly shows that Southern Ontario was Six Nations territory past the 1763 proclamation.
When Haldimand made his proclamation, Six Nations have been in possession of the South West and North West parts of Ontario since about 1650. They had also been in possession around the shores of Lake Ontario and Erie (and inland for 100 miles) for over 1200 years. When he used the word “purchased” in his Proclamation it did not mean the British obtained a surrender. The meeting a Burlington with the Mississauga does not meet the conditions of a surrender, required under the Royal Proclamation 1763, so any they did is a red herring. In fact that meeting was brokered by Joseph Brant and Six Nations chiefs as a means to compensate their cousins – the Mississauga – for their return to their homelands. The only reason the Mississauga were anywhere south of Lake Superior was the result of the Two Spoons One Bowl wampum treatied around 1650.
Recap: RP says Indian lands off limits; Six Nation has possession of Southern Ontario and has never surrendered, left the land, or failed to use it, even though there were many squatters that the government promised but refused to move.
From about 750AD the Confederacy Nations have occupied Southern Ontario. In the guidelines defined by the Supreme Court, Six Nations still holds title. The treaties made with other FNs later, to surrender their claims to the lands have no effect on Six Nations title.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
For centuries, the group of Indians we now call the Six Nations Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) lived south of Lake Ontario in the Mohawk Valley and Finger Lakes region of what is now upper New York State, U.S.A. Some Six Nations Iroquois set up camps along the North shore of Lake Ontario.
The group we now call the Six Nations Iroquois originally formed a confederacy of five Iroquois bands including the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Onondaga, the Cayuga and the Seneca. The Tuscarora Iroquoian Indians moved from North Carolina to New York to join the Five Nations Iroquois to form a confederacy of Six Nations sometime between 1712 and 1720.
In the mid-1600s, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois from what is now upper New York State conquered Indian bands around them and all the way west to what is now Chicago, Illinois. The Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois also entered what is now south-western Ontario to kill, conquer and disperse the indigenous Huron, Neutral and Petun Indians.
In the mid-1690s, the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians fought with and pushed the invading Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois out of what is now southern and south-western Ontario, across Lake Erie and back toward their homeland in New York where the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois made peace and gave up the land in what is now southern Ontario to the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians.
A 2003 Indian Claims Commission report describes that history and then says “By 1700, the Mississaugas had succeeded in expelling the Iroquois and taken control of the north shore of Lake Ontario. In that year, representatives of the Mississaugas and other Ojibwa groups travelled to Onondaga, the capital of the Iroquois Confederacy, with an offer of peace. In exchange for the Confederacy’s recognition of the Mississaugas’ territorial control, and an agreement to allow them direct access to English fur traders, the Mississaugas offered to cease hostilities. The offer of peace was accepted in June 1700, and as a result, the Mississaugas secured their control of the territory between Lake Huron and Lake Ontario. They would occupy these lands until the land cessions of the late 18th and early 19th centuries confined them to a very small proportion of their former territory”.
Source: Indian Claims Commission, 2003: Mississaugas of the New Credit, First Nation Inquiry, Toronto Purchase Claim, page 9.
According to information about the history of Simcoe County on a Wyandotte (Huron) internet website, Ojibwa Chief William Yellowhead brought out a wampum belt when the Ojibwa “had occasion to remind representatives of the Six Nations of their defeat and cession of Southern Ontario”.
Nevertheless, on July 19, 1701, twenty chiefs from the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois Confederacy signed or placed their marks (totems) on the so-called Nanfan Treaty named after Sir John Nanfan who was then acting Governor of the British Province of New York. In the Nanfan agreement, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois gave up their beaver hunting grounds to the British Crown. In that agreement, the chiefs said “we…surrender, deliver up and forever quit claim” to a huge tract of land, which they said they had conquered, to “our great Lord and Master the King of England” on condition the British would allow Five Nations people to hunt on that land forever.
Source: Nanfan Treaty 1701, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875″ U. S. Serial Set, Number 4015 beginning at page 552.
At the Nanfan Treaty meeting in 1701, a New York surveyor named Samuel Clowes or Clows produced a map showing the Nanfan Treaty land included land in what is now south-western Ontario and along the Grand River. Samuel Clowes (Clows) signed the 1701 Nanfan Treaty and his map is now stored in the British Archives in England.
The Ontario government recognizes the Clowes (Clows) map and I have Email from Aboriginal Affairs Ontario to that effect.
Furthermore, the Six Nations refers to the 1701 Nanfan Treaty in its 2010 booklet called “Land Rights a Global Solution for the Six Nations of the Grand River” and Six Nations people have used the 1701 Nanfan Treaty to try to block development in south-western Ontario and to hunt deer on Hamilton Conservation Authority land.
So, Charter Rights don’t tell us the Six Nations did not surrender land in southern and south-western Ontario.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
5
“On that note: what gives anyone the authority over me, or what I feel is right, or what I should choose to protest for.”
One could say “protest on your own property”, but you’d just use a circular/convenient definition and protest anywhere you like.
By the way, how does property title/ownership work in first nations type lands? Now or before? What equity does any particular partial descendant hold?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
bsm4life said “as far as the police being involved and arresting anyone who protests anything. We’re all human beings and we ALL have the right to our voices and opinions”.
Yes we all have a right to protest and voice our opinions on things.
However, we don’t have the right to block or enter private property or stall, interfere with or stop others from building on land to which they have title.
I can protest against your ideas, for example, but I can’t enter your property without your permission to do it and I don’t think you would want me to.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2