July 14, 2011 Hamilton Spectator
CAMBRIDGE — Federal negotiators have to change their mindset if First Nations land claims along the Grand River through Waterloo Region are ever going to be resolved, say two native spokespeople.
Instead of talking about single cash payments to solve ownership disputes, it’s time to talk about affordable annual payments in perpetuity, said Lonny Bomberry, director of the lands and resources department of the Six Nations elected council.
“Canada has to change its mandate ... they’re still under specific claims policy,” he said Thursday in Cambridge.
“We hear, in the wind, they’re seriously looking at the global solution approach.”
Aboriginal affairs minister John Duncan’s officer offered this statement about Six Nations land claims:
“Canada has engaged the Province and the Six Nations Elected and Confederacy councils in informal talks to try to determine how best to get back to the negotiating table ...
“Canada remains committed to finding common ground on Six Nations historical claims and to working with all parties to build a more viable negotiation process.”
Bomberry and Phil Monture, a Six Nations land claims researcher, gave a broad-brush explanation of local land claims to a meeting of the Grand River Conservation Authority board. They plan to visit city, town and township councils throughout the watershed, drum up support for resumption of negotiations.
Their conservation authority presentation was short and amicable. Monture and Bomberry praised the authority for co-operating and consulting with Six Nations long before all government agencies were required to following 2004 Supreme Court.
There’s no proposal to take disputed land along the Grand, just compensation for past wrongs, they said.
Bomberry personally hopes for a unified Six Nations to simplify land claims negotiations. Today, there’s the elected council and the traditional unelected leaders council, along with other groups who disagree over who represents whom.
In 1784, the British Crown rewarded its Six Nations allies in the U.S. War of Independence land in along the Grand River in Canada “to enjoy forever.” The land was purchased from the Mississaugas, who didn’t own it. A 1791 government survey marked 20 kilometre swath of land with the Grand down the middle — including today’s Brantford, Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo. It didn’t, however include the river’s headwaters north of Fergus, which Six Nations now claims they should have received.
Six Nations says they owned all the land outright, while the Crown contends it was only for their use. The Crown asserts it always retained ownership, and the right to sell it.
Over the next 50 years, governments approved sales, some land was gifted and other land leased to settlers who never returned it. Money from land sales was supposed to be held for the Six Nations, but it was mismanaged, diverted to government coffers, used for private investments or never collected at all, said land researcher Monture.
Only five per cent of the Grand land grant remains under Six Nations control south of Brantford. That’s prompted 29 Six Nations claims along the river. Only one has been settled.
“All we’re doing is seeking the same justice you would” if lands were taken without agreed to compensation, Monture, said.
“The Crown as supposed to act in good faith and trust … it didn’t happen,” he said.
“They have failed us. They have failed you.”
Stalled land claims negotiations leave Six Nations residents poor, angry and desperate to find any route to resolution, Monture said.
“The frustration boils over: if you can do it, we’ll get someone else. That’s why you’ve got the Caledonias.”
Six Nation land claims along the Grand River are little different from hundreds of claims moving ahead at glacial speed nationwide, said Malcolm Saulis, professor at Wilfrid Laurier University specializing in aboriginal studies.
“It is a quagmire,” he said.
It’s easy to suggest a “global resolution” to First Nations land claims, but it’s likely impractical along the Grand, Saulis said. Federal, provincial regional and local governments are facing off with various First Nations factions.
“You need to find a settlement across all those jurisdictions,” he said.
The only way he sees to solve that problem is appointing a third party to settle it, instead of negotiating around in circles.
The non-native population — in general — doesn’t understand the complicated historical foundation to native land claims. That compounds problems to resolve them, Saulis said.
Then there’s the value of lands in dispute, Saulis said. First Nations want to talk about the value today and lost income over generations; governments talk about what the land was worth two centuries ago, Saulis said.
Nor do most Canadians understand how paternalistic federal laws controlling First Nations communities compound social and economic problems.
Without local decision making, it’s impossible for First Nations to build a “civil society” to meet the needs of its citizens, he said.
Essential services like health care are funded annually for First Nations communities, with no guarantee they’ll continue into the next year. Perversely, government touts that kind of “project based” system as a good thing, Saulis said.
“Can you imagine if the government walked into K-W Hospital and said it’s shutting down at the end of the year? There would be community uproar.”