The Record
July 31, 2007
Waterloo is not Caledonia. It is a different place with a different history and, most significantly for this discussion, no ongoing dispute with any Canadian First Nations community.
So why is David Wellhauser suddenly suggesting that the aboriginal protests that have rocked the town of Caledonia could erupt in the city of Waterloo? Why is Wellhauser, who has until now made reasoned arguments against three Waterloo subdivisions, grasping at a ridiculous, possibly dangerous straw in the campaign to stop the developments from being built? Why, indeed?
This week Wellhauser warned that if the region ignores aboriginal interests in Waterloo's west side developments, it risks seeing a replay of the tensions that have gripped Caledonia for more than a year. Though Wellhauser didn't specify what people in this community might have to look forward to, anyone familiar with the Six Nations occupation of a Caledonia subdivision knows it was marred last year by vandalism, violence, assaults, arrests as well as criminal charges, and that the occupation continues to this day.
"We hope this . . . doesn't turn into a Caledonia,'' Wellhauser said. "If (Waterloo Region planning commissioner) Rob Horne signs off on this report without consultation with the First Nations it could be a powder keg.''
In uttering these ominous statements, Wellhauser was not merely spouting theory. He has been in contact with Six Nations elder Floyd Montour and, apparently, arranged for Montour to take his place in an upcoming meeting with local officials dealing with the subdivisions. It's doubtful Montour can bring anything constructive to these talks. By his own admission, he has never been on the site and isn't even clear where it is. He can have little of value to contribute today, 15 years after the land in question was redesignated for urban growth and a year after the democratically elected leaders of Waterloo gave their OK to the subdivisions.
Let's be perfectly blunt here. The suggestion that these developments are on land claimed by an aboriginal community is without foundation. There is no outstanding aboriginal claim to any land in Waterloo Region, except to the bed and banks of the Grand River itself. And the west-side Waterloo lands are far from the river.
It's possible the Six Nations community may some day advance more land claims within Waterloo Region, much of which was part of the original Haldimand tract granted to them in 1784. But so far, natives have brought forward no documented challenge to the Six Nations sale of lands in Waterloo Region, which was made in 1798. The opposite is true in the Caledonia land dispute.
The fact is, officials in Waterloo Region have recently made great efforts to consult with the Six Nations about projects that could have an impact on the natives' Grand River claim. For instance, the regional government has talked to Six Nations officials about a new Fairway Road bridge over the Grand and about repairs to the Bridgeport bridge. Relations between this community and the Six Nations Reserve are good, and should be kept that way.
As for the critics of Waterloo's west-side subdivisions, they have every right to oppose those subdivisions. They have every right to make their views known and to try persuading the decision makers that the projects should be stopped. But no one should manufacture a native land-claim dispute in west Waterloo where none exists. To do so would not simply be an act of desperation, it would, given what has happened in Caledonia, be irresponsible.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose west-side Waterloo development without conjuring up the spectre of an ugly standoff that's shown no sign of happening but could, with the wrong kind of interference, quite possibly be arranged.