By Karen Best
Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 09:00
Haldimand Review
The main negotiators of the Caledonia land issue expected talks to continue even though Canada and Six Nations positions on Douglas Creek Estates are polarized.
At a Jan. 25 meeting of the main negotiating table, the Canadian Department of Justice position on the surrender of the land was revealed. “It is upholding the legal position of the federal government,” said Canada’s key negotiator Barb McDougall. “There is no legitimate claim to that particular piece of property.”
This legal response was formulated by department lawyers over the past two months as they studied a Six Nations position paper and oral history that stated the land was to leased and was never for sale.
In a statement released on Jan. 27, the Six Nations Confederacy Chiefs Council said their position has not changed. “The lands along the Grand River, six miles on either side, belong to the Haudenosaunee, as set out in the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784,” they said.
That year, the British government granted this territory to replace Six Nations lands lost due to their allegiance to the Crown in the American War of Independence.
Ontario’s top negotiator Jane Stewart and McDougall remain committed to pursuing resolutions at the table but Mohawk Confederacy Chief Allen MacNaughton expressed displeasure with the turn of events and methods employed by the Canadian government.
“I’m not impressed by it,” he said. “It’s a type of negotiation I wouldn’t condone.”
The chief said the federal government presented the position as the bottom line rather than identifying it as a problem to talk about. Later MacNaughton described Canada’s legal opinion as a political position.
Whenever possible, the justice department takes this position to limit rights and claims of indigenous people to protect the public purse, the Six Nations Confederacy chiefs said in their Jan. 27 statement.
MacNaughton said he was most disappointed that the federal government tried to tell his people what a Canadian court would do while failing to take into account oral evidence provided by two elder chiefs and a historian. “We know that this is wrong in their law and it is wrong in ours,” he said.
“Although our legal position remains, taking into account the Haudenosaunee position, it doesn’t mean there are not solutions to problems at the table, “ said McDougall. “There are still issues we want to deal with and we are looking at creative solutions. They are under discussion.”
About two months ago, MacNaughton and Cayuga Confederacy Sub-chief Leroy Hill presented an 80-page document on the Plank Road claim to the main negotiating group.
In the 1840s, the British Crown approached Six Nations to purchase a portion of their territory for part of the plank road between Hamilton and Port Dover. The Haldimand Tract section covered half a mile on either side of Argyle Street South and Highway 6. The Six Nations position is the land was to be leased and was never for sale.
Over a hundred years of misunderstanding or perpetuated misinformation must be cleared up, said MacNaughton last week. “We don’t have a claim on Plank Road. We have land rights,” he said. “DCE is a reclamation. It’s not an occupation.”
At the Feb. 8 main table meeting, the Confederacy will present its response to Canada’s position.
Lawyers with the federal justice department worked very hard and were very thorough in reviewing the Six Nations document, said McDougall. They came to their conclusion that the land was legally surrendered after poring over records and after considering the presentation made to the main negotiating group, she said.
At a December public meeting held in Ohsweken, federal negotiator Ron Doering said that if the Department of Justice decides Canada has no obligation, then the Crown’s position is there is none and that DCE was surrendered.
When asked if the Ontario government would permit Six Nations people to remain on DCE, Stewart said people should not make presumptions on the outcome of negotiations. In July, the province assumed ownership of the 200 acre site.
“They're a lot of aspects with the surrender of Plank Road,” Stewart said. Ontario is committed to continued negotiations to resolve outstanding issues, she said.
Hazel Hill, who is a spokesperson for the DCE reclamation, was clear about unresolved issues. “We’re saying it’s not a surrender. We’re not here dealing with Canadian laws. We are here nation to nation with the Two Row Wampum (agreement).”
“We’ve all along known we own (DCE),” said Hill.
In the 17th century, Five Nations of the Haudenosaunee entered into the Two Row treaty with Dutch settlers and in subsequent treaties used its recognition of sovereignty and non-interference in governance and culture.
Even though her people disagree with the federal position, Hill said they are committed to the process and will work toward a resolution consistent with a peaceful relationship and the Two Row and Silver Covenant Chain agreement, which also recognizes the independence of First Nations.
“Now we have to go back with what they said under advisement,” said Hill. “It’s got nothing to do with Canada because our laws pre-exist Canadian laws. It’s about educating people. Just because they say it, doesn’t say it is so...We’re still very, very confident that the history shows different.” .
When asked about the Moulton Township and Dunnville land claims, Hill said the focus was on DCE and area and that her people were in it for the long haul. The Haudenosaunee want to resolve issues about other lands in the Haldimand Tract “so we don’t have to resort to these things”, said Hill.
As misinformation about Six Nations is exposed and set aside, healing will begin, said Hill. “We will continue to work to address the concerns of all people rather than allowing feelings to fester,” she said.