Archive | June 2013

Deskahe’s Words Finally Heard – Message Taken to Ottawa Explained

2013 june 19 teka front page

Click to read the full story by Jim Windle.

Ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah Delegation Official Press Update



Statement of Ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah of Grand River Mohawk Workers RE: Enbridge Line 9 and Peace Talks

June 18 2013 Statement of Ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah of Grand River Mohawk Workers

Statement of Ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah of Grand River Mohawk Workers
(From The Teka News)


From The Teka News


June 17 Mohawk Workers’ Delegation to Ottawa

June 17 Mohawk Workers' Delegation to Ottawa - House of Commons

June 17 Mohawk Workers’ Delegation to Ottawa – House of Commons

The Mohawk Workers, sanctioned by Ohrerekó:wa, Principle Chief for Ka-nyen-geh-ha-ka Wolf Clan (Mohawks) of Grand River met with Dr. Carolyn Bennett (MP, Aboriginal Affairs Critic / Chair of the Liberal Woman’s Caucus) in Ottawa on June 17, 2013. Dr. Bennett’s staff also took part in the meeting. Bill Squire, spokesperson for Onkwehon:we Turtle, Wolf & Bear clans presented Dr. Bennett with a beautiful gift hand-made by one of our women, which Dr. Bennett appreciated a great deal. It was a flower braided with sweet grass, and decorated with purple and white beads. During the meeting, Dr. Bennett expressed genuine concern for the situation, and revealed her passion for these issues. She has asked the Mohawk Workers to continue to dialogue with her, and reminded us that Justin Trudeau wishes to engage on these issues personally as well. We agreed to continue to communicate and work together on solutions which can bring people together while at the same time educating on the critical issues. She was thankful also for the material provided to her, and vowed to review it thoroughly.

Ellis Hill, Bill Squire and Frank Smith - Mohawk Workers' Delegation to Ottawa Centre Block - Parliament Building

Ellis Hill, Bill Squire and Frank Smith – Mohawk Workers’ Delegation to Ottawa
Centre Block – Parliament Building

After the meeting with Dr. Bennett at Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings, we were able view some debate in the House of Commons on the subject of Bills S-6 (First Nations Elections Act), Bill S-8 (Safe Drinking Water for First Nations) and Bill C-428 (Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act).

NOTE: Harper’s new policy measures include unilateral federal legislation the Harper government is imposing over Onkwehon:we which include:

Bill C-27: First Nations Financial Transparency Act
Bill C-45: Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 [Omnibus Bill includes Indian Act amendments regarding voting on-reserve lands surrenders/designations]
Bill S-2: Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act
Bill S-6: First Nations Elections Act
Bill S-8: Safe Drinking Water for First Nations
Bill C-428: Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act [Private Conservative MP’s Bill, but supported by Harper government]

Senate Public Bills:
Bill S-207: An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights)
Bill S-212: First Nations Self-Government Recognition Bill

The Harper government’s Bills listed above are designed to undermine the collective rights of Onkwehon:we by focusing on individual rights. This is the “modern legislative framework” the Conservatives promised in 2006.

The 2006 Conservative Platform promised to replace the Indian Act (and related legislation) with a modern legislative framework which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Create municipal-styled structures where Onkwehonwe are taxed).

Of course “modern” in Conservative terms means assimilation of Onkwehon:we by termination of their collective rights and off-loading federal responsibilities onto the Indigenous Peoples themselves and the provinces.

In addition, the regime seems intent on what is being called “First Nations’ Private Ownership Act (FNPOA)”. This private property concept for Indian Reserves — which had been peddled by the likes of disgraced Tom Flanagan and tax proponent and former Kamloops Chief Manny Jules — is also a core plank of the Harper government’s 2006 electoral platform.

The 2006 Conservative Aboriginal Platform promised that if elected a Harper government would support the development of individual property ownership on reserves, to encourage lending for private housing and businesses. The long-term goals set out in the Harper government’s policy and legislative initiatives listed above are not new; they are at least as old as the Indian Act and were articulated in the federal 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, which set out a plan to terminate Indian rights at the time.

Indeed, from listening to the House of Commons today, 2 things were clear:
1) Harper’s regime is intent on pursuing widening assimilation policies incrementally and based on Municipal models in order to unlock and commercialize resources as a method of funding reservation models;
2) While there are some MPs who are clearly aware of this agenda, and are standing against it – this opposition is academic in nature – by that I mean that in the end, the assimilation will continue despite the debate in the House. While these issues were being debated, only a handful of MPs bothered to even attend the debate. (The entire House was virtually deserted – save for a 1/2 dozen or so – a few of whom took the time to express their opposition to what is being done).


Embassy for Switzerland in Ottawa

Next, our delegation also met with The Ambassador for Switzerland, Ulrich Lehner and his staff. Switzerland is a multi-cultural and multilingual (French/German/Italian) nation shaped by the will of its people. It has been a federal State since 1848. Switzerland has a federal structure with three different political levels: the Confederation, the cantons and the communes.

Switzerland is a federal republic with a system of direct democracy in which the people are “sovereign”. All Swiss citizens over the age of 18 have the right to vote. They get to exercise this right regularly, as they are called on three to four times a year to take part in popular votes on a variety of political issues.

Switzerland enjoys close political and economic ties with a large number of countries around the world and is a member of various international organisations. In 2002, Switzerland became the 190th member of the United Nations following a nationwide vote on the issue. Prior to this, Switzerland had played an active role in various UN bodies.

The goals of Swiss foreign policy are:

Peaceful co-existence of people of all nations
Promotion of and respect for human rights
Environmental sustainability
Representing the interests of Swiss businesses abroad
Combating need and poverty in the world

The Ambassador seemed to take a keen interest in the Mohawks’ situation as it was set out. He had already been made aware of Canada’s human rights issues, particularly in respect of Indigenous Peoples – and pointed out that this past comprehensive review of the State of Canada in Geneva did not go well for Canada in his mind. He applauded and supported our efforts with James Anaya the UN Special Rapporteur who met with the delegation in New York on May 20th which he had not known about. In fact, he supported this avenue stating that it was precisely the right way to go in these circumstances. Also, he was informed of new cooperative opportunities which may be of interest to the people of Switzerland, and we agreed to continue to dialogue on all matters. I can describe the meeting as warm and friendly – and I was very pleased to see that we were welcomed by the Swiss Ambassador and the Embassy staff in such a way. The Ambassador also appreciated the material which was provided to him, took considerable interest, and agreed to review same as well as seeking instructions from his superiors in order to determine the level of involvement or assistance which may be offered. We were very thankful for the opportunity to meet with the Ambassador and look forward to remaining in contact.

The delegation will be available to discuss the trip and related developments in greater detail at the next meeting of Mohawk Workers set for Wednesday June 19th, at 7:30 pm at Kanata.

Spiritual Fire – All Nations Welcome – Friday June 21

Onikońhra n’otsire

(Spiritual Fire)

Tkanatáhere – Kanata

Sunrise – Friday June 21st

11:00 a.m. Potluck Lunch

All Nations Welcome

Onikońhra n’otsire (Spiritual Fire) Tkanatáhere Kanata All Nations Welcome

Onikońhra n’otsire (Spiritual Fire)
Tkanatáhere Kanata
All Nations Welcome

Kanata – 440 Mohawk Street, Brantford
(315) 755-5036

“Perhaps it is a question of creating new models based on human rights, models that respect the rights of indigenous peoples.”

Q&A: “The State Does Not Lose Sovereignty If It Respects Indigenous Rights”

Published on June 3rd, 2013 by Milagros Salazar

The problem is that the models that have existed up until now have shown these (indigenous rights and economic development) to be incompatible. Perhaps it is a question of creating new models based on human rights, models that respect the rights of indigenous peoples. It’s not a question of putting a brake on development. – James Anaya

When the state respects human rights, it exercises its sovereignty, says James Anaya. Credit: Milagros Salazar/IPS

DARWIN, Australia, Jun 3 2013 (IPS) – “There is a belief that consent is about saying yes or no, about who wins,” observed James Anaya, the United Nations special rapporteur on indigenous rights. But consultation with indigenous peoples is a matter of “creating open processes where they can voice their opinions and influence decisions, and where there is the necessary will to seek consensus.”

Anaya, an attorney, professor and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, formed part of the diversity of faces, languages, cultures and experiences that came together at the World Indigenous Network (WIN) Conference held May 26-29 in Darwin, Australia.

In his 30-minute presentation, Anaya stressed the importance of the implementation of measures by national governments to ensure respect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007.

During his brief stay in Darwin, Anaya made time to speak with Tierramérica about the controversial implementation of prior consultation with indigenous peoples and the challenge of designing models of development that can enable countries to achieve prosperity while respecting the rights of native communities.

In his opinion, Peru is the Latin American country that has made the most regulatory progress in the implementation of prior consultation with indigenous peoples on projects or activities that affect their territory or culture, as established in Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO).

But Peru still needs to demonstrate its capacity for respecting indigenous rights in practice. “Learning comes from experience, and in Peru they are working on building an adequate process,” he commented.

Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil and Colombia are discussing these mechanisms, although they have yet to establish rules or protocols for conducting consultations. In Anaya’s view, countries do not necessarily have to adopt laws before beginning the consultation process. The main requirement is the “will” to respect indigenous rights, he said.

Q: There is a perception that some governments in Latin America operate with a double standard: they sign international instruments to protect indigenous rights, but don’t implement measures to respect them. Do you agree with this view?

A: I believe the fact that almost all the Latin American countries have voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ratified Convention 169 is an advance. These are important steps.

Now it is time to implement these processes, but this is very complex. States need to make efforts to confront this challenge. There are a number of issues that need to be considered here: first, state officials need to be educated to understand that these rules are not only a question of international relations, but that they need to be applied internally, because they are directed at the indigenous peoples who live in their territories.

The second thing needed is the political will, and sometimes this is the problem, because there are various political and economic forces that need to be dealt with. Third is the establishment of mechanisms for collaboration with indigenous peoples in order to implement the rules.

Q: One of the areas where there is a great deal  of resistance on the part of national authorities is the implementation of prior consultation. What is your view of the criteria being used by governments to establish whether an indigenous community has the right to be consulted?

A: That varies a lot between countries, it depends on the state.

Q: In Peru, for example.

A: In Peru they are just beginning to apply their law and its regulations. I know there is a whole debate on the registry (of indigenous communities), but we still have to see how they are going to apply the law. I hope they will do it in accordance with international standards.

On the other hand, it should be recognised that consultation is based on basic rights that in some way apply to everyone. In the case of indigenous peoples, because of their characteristics, there need to be special and differentiated procedures. This is not a matter of abstract considerations, it has to be addressed on the ground.

Q: Speaking of concrete cases, in Peru there is a consensus on consulting indigenous peoples in the Amazon, but this is not the case when it comes to communities of peasant farmers that are located precisely in the areas where extractive activities are carried out.

A: The rights of indigenous peoples must always be protected. It is necessary to move forward with development for the benefit of everyone, but protecting indigenous rights. And achieving both things is possible; they are not incompatible.

Q: Perhaps that is the problem: governments feel that respect for indigenous rights has to be left aside in order to promote private investment in their lands…

A: The problem is that the models that have existed up until now have shown these (indigenous rights and economic development) to be incompatible. Perhaps it is a question of creating new models based on human rights, models that respect the rights of indigenous peoples. It’s not a question of putting a brake on development.

Q: That seems like something so easy to understand, but there is a lot of resistance.

A: There is a great deal  of polarisation between the different parties, there needs to be more dialogue.

Q: Do you think the state would lose its sovereignty if an indigenous community has the last word on whether or not an investment project can be undertaken on their territory?

A: The state does not lose its sovereignty if it respects human rights or indigenous rights. It has to comply with these rules to respect those rights; the state cannot do whatever it wants.

I would say that the respect of these rights is a way of ensuring that this sovereignty is exercised. When the state respects human rights, it exercises its sovereignty, because it is acting in favour of its citizens and peoples.

Q: Nevertheless, there has been a loss of trust in governments. What can be done to ensure legitimate consultations and to open up dialogue?

A: The mistrust and prejudice need to be overcome. It is a matter of creating open processes where indigenous peoples can voice their opinions and influence decisions, and where there is the necessary will to seek consensus.

The problem is that sometimes there is a belief that consent is about saying yes or no, about who wins. Consent is linked to consultation; the purpose of consultation is to reach consent, to reach consensus. It is not a question of one side imposing its opinion on the other.

* This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network.

City of Brantford Put on Notice of Claim & Requested Undertakings Under Seal of Principle Chief – Wolf Clan – Mohawks of Grand River


Mohawks of the 5 Nation Confederacy

Brantford City Council                                                           June 4th, 2013
c/o Lori Wolfe, MPA – City Clerk & Director
City Clerk’s Department, City Hall
100 Wellington Square
Brantford, Ontario, N3T 2M3

i)     Claim No. 774719 – City of Brantford
ii)    Grand River Navigation Company
iii)   431 West St. and 110 Gilkison St.
iv)   June 13, 2012 Vacant City Properties List Compiled by John Wyatt

Mayor Friel and Council,

I am Ohrerekó:wa, known as Edwin (Ted) Squire Hill, Principle Chief for  Ka-nyen-geh-ha-ka Wolf Clan (Mohawks) of Grand River.  I carry Chief’s antlers and a title for my people as set out within the foundation of what is known as the 5 Nation Confederacy or League of Great Peace.  I convey my kind greetings on the part of my people who are Onkwehon:we, to this Council, and to the residents of Brantford.  I advise that I have recently received reply to my appeal sent under seal of the Mohawks of Grand River, to my ally, your Queen Elizabeth II in respect of matters which includes the above-referenced outstanding arrears claim, a request for an accounting for the period from 1784 to 1867, etc.

As you are aware, on August 30th, 2012 the Mohawk Workers identified the City of Brantford and 7 other parties deemed to have acted without color of right in respect of lands within the Haldimand Tract. The “Lawful Notices of Intent” (LNIs), reiterated prior cease and desist notices in respect of unauthorized improper personation, representation, negotiation, development, maintenance, construction, etc. Parties formally directed to cease and desist from any further unauthorized actions in respect of lands within the Haldimand Tract.

The LNIs seeking to establish communication protocols were delivered to:

  1. The Corporation of the City of Brantford as Mayor Chris Friel;
  2. The Corporation of Brant County as Mayor Ron Eddy;
  3. The Corporation of Haldimand County as Mayor Ken Hewitt;
  4. Walton International Group Inc. as C.E.O. Patrick J. Doherty;
  5. Samsung Electronics Co. as C.E.O. Dr. Oh-Hyun Kwon;
  6. Six Nations Elected Band Council as Elected Chief William Montour;
  7. Association of Iroquois and Allied Nations as Elected Grand Chief Gord Peters; and,
  8. Ontario Municipal Board as Chair Lynda Tanaka.

On September 6th, 2012 Brant County Mayor Ron Eddy came to our fire at Kanata where we, together with Mohawk Workers, exchanged visions looking forward. He registered himself pursuant to the LNI notice with my office, and commenced a dialogue marking an historic new chapter in Onkwehon:we relations within Brant County.  He received a gift as a token of gesture on our part, and departed with a better understanding after reminding us that he had taken part in the planting of a “Tree of Peace” at Kanata on an occasion prior, and came of his own “free will”.

On October 22nd, Ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah Turtle, Wolf and Bear clan representatives sent a delegation to address this Council in order to reiterate the seriousness of this Council’s course of seemingly increasingly obstructive and defiant conduct.  This Council was invited – indeed urged to include my voice at future discussions and to meaningfully engage these matters with a view to resolution. Copies of the August 30th, 2012 LNI, Invoice No.: CB20121019DA dated October 19th 2012, and my November 27th 1972 correspondence from Brigadier General André Garneau on the part of Canada’s Governor General acknowledging my appointment as Principle Chief, were each provided to this Council on that occasion.

Despite exhaustive attempts made on the part of the Mohawk Workers to engage dialogue in order to speak to these matters with this Council, we faced little choice other than to pursue damages and protect interests asserted on the part of my people accordingly by other means.

Accordingly, on November 2, 2012, my administration acting as the Mohawk Workers, forwarded a synthesis of pertinent information as requested by United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Mr. Anaya’s direction in an October 31, 2012 letter from the Office of the high Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.

The allegation synthesis was also copied to Ontario’s provincial Ministers of Environment, Culture, and the Attorney General with the express hope that the alleged offending entities including branches / arms of Canadian governments be compelled to respect relevant international protocols including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as endorsed on Canada’s part. Concerns set out included our fear that further disturbances, digging and disruption / corruption of Tutela Heights and other sacred sites including other irreparable harm will be permitted to occur within our territorial lands at the hands of the Ontario Superior Court and / or other Canadian entities notwithstanding our allegations and objections, and contrary to the rights of my people as protected and enshrined within Canada’s codified laws and applicable treaties.

I draw to your attention the following affirmation of our Grand River land holdings and authority, as confirmed by the words of King George III’s representative in Upper Canada who, after John Graves Simcoe returned to the UK in 1796, was the highest ranking Imperial official of both the Executive and Legislative Councils holding the office of Administrator of Upper Canada, from 1775 to 1799:

On July 3rd, 1797 Peter Russell assured Ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah Principle Chief Joseph Brant on the part of my people unequivocally in writing that:

 “Agreeable to the promise I made you in my letter of the 26th.  I loss no time in laying before a full council the Request you made to me in your letter of that date.  And I have now the pleasure to inform you that was their Unanimous Opinion that the Request of the Five Nations (as signified to me by you) respecting their having permission to dispose of their Lands on the Grand River agreeable to their own pleasure shall be immediately complied with, without my waiting for an answer from the Secretary of State to the letter I had written to him on their subject.

You will therefore be pleased to inform the Five Nations in my name that they may consider themselves at liberty in to dispose of such Parts of the Lands which they now possess on the Grand River as they may judge proper, for the purpose of securing an Annuity to be a future Provision to themselves & their Posterity forever.

And that I shall be ready from time to time, agreeable to their desire as signified by you, to confirm by the King’s Grants under the Great Seal of this Province the free Possession of any Parts there of to such persons as they may dispose of them to upon the five nations surrendering the Same to His Majesty by such a legal Instrument as the Kings Attorney General shall approve and the Persons, who may authorized by the five Nations or their agent to receive the Deeds therefore, paying the Fees of office there on and subscribing the Declaration & taking the Oaths of Allegiance as prescribed by law.

Having prorogued the Provincial Parliament this afternoon, the Chief Justice & the members of the two Houses leave this to morrow in the Mohawk. The Quantity of Business which I have to attend to preventing my accompanying them, it maybe some days before I can have an Opportunity to return to Newark.  Upon my arrival then I shall have the pleasure of writing you again and I have the Honor to be in the mean time with Regard


                        your Most Obedient

                                    Humble Servant

                                                Peter Russell

                                                President Administering

                                                the Government of Upper Canada”

Accordingly, I now draw your attention to the following instances of unlawful conveyances in respect of Grand River Territory made by various parties:

1) On February 19, 1823, Seventeen (17) “Principle Chiefs of the Six Nations” entered into an unauthorized lease with Marshal Lewis for the express purpose of constructing and operating a Grist Mill on the Grand River. On November 1, 1828, Marshal Lewis unlawfully conveyed said unlawfully leased lands to Julius Morgan for £750, who subsequently, on March 9, 1830, unlawfully conveyed same, excepting the Grist Mill and Lot containing ½ an acre, to Nathan Gage for $1,250.00.  On February 25, 1840, fraudulent Letters Patent was issued to Nathan Gage for Park Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and westerly 4/5 of number 25 and numbers 26, 27, 28, 29 in Brantford. Also on this date, a Letters Patent was issued to Nathan Gage for Park Lots 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36.

2) On April 19th, 1830, the “Six Nations” again usurped, by ceding to the Crown, without color of right, 807 acres for an unincorporated private Town Plot at Brant’s Ford to be divided into lots and sold for “Six Nations’” benefit.  Three trustees were to take charge of “Six Nations’” monies.  It is said that on this date, twenty-nine (29) “Sachems and Chiefs of Six Nations” including a party listed as “Teacup” purportedly surrendered (Surrender No. 30) to the King for sale an estimated 807 acres for a Town Plot known henceforth as Brantford. On December 1st, 1831, Peter Robinson, Commissioner of Crown Lands, issued a public notice advising of the rules established by the Government for regulating the disposal of public lands.

3) Lands were to be surveyed, valued, sold at public auctions at prices per acre to be recommended by the Commissioner of Crown Lands.  The notice also regulated the terms of payment of purchase money.  John Macaulay, Surveyor General, subdivided the Town Plot of Brantford in order that lots be sold on June 29th, 1837.  On September 15th, 1838 “Six Nations” reported that Sir John Colborne had advised them to surrender to the Government the lands around the Brantford Bridge and he would then compel the squatters to leave their lands.  A purported ‘surrender’ was taken for that purpose which also fails to bear neither my title’s endorsement, nor indeed that of any recognized Ka-nyen-geh-ha-ka Principle Chief of the 5 Nations.

4) On February 24th, 1846, William Walker, Deputy Provincial Surveyor, received instructions from the Surveyor General for the Indian Department, to survey the remaining Town Lots of the Town of Brantford. Fraudulent Letters Patent No. 708 was issued the Municipal Council of the Town of Brantford containing 19 2/10 acres on November 5th, 1851. These lands were in the original Town of Brantford. The patent stipulated an amount of £8 which was only for the patent fee.

5) From 1830 to 1842, specific valuations and sale conditions were issued for Purported Surrender No. 30. Over the years, to-date, numerous other allegations of outright theft and fraud must now be examined and accounted for. For example, descriptive plans were not signed, witnessed and attached to purported ‘Surrender’ No. 30, and others, in accordance with 1812 Governor’s Instructions for the “Alienation of Indian lands”.

6) Further, as stated above, there has not been a single lawful conveyance of Ka-nyen-geh-ha-ka Grand River lands from the 5 Nations to any party since 1812 bearing the endorsement of Ka-nyen-geh-ha-ka Principle Chiefs’ Titles or their appointed representatives.  Despite this, unauthorized actions on the part of “Six Nations” and other parties have caused our lands to be usurped and disposed of under their appraised value.  Some lands were never appraised and disposed of nevertheless.  Other lands were obtained by individuals as ‘free grants’ and no payments whatsoever were made.  Yet other lands were taken for ‘public purposes’ in lieu of authorization and any payment whatsoever.  In some cases our records indicated that certain lands were obtained by way of schemes whereby only payment to the government of a patent or administration fee, etc. was required in order to obtain title to our Grand River Lands now situated within the City of Brantford.

These issues form, inter alia, the basis for my appeal which was forwarded to Queen Elizabeth II on January 15th, 2013.  The Queen has advised that she intends to act though the Governor General, on the advice of her Canadian Ministers.

To be clear, neither the purported surrender in respect of the Brantford Town Plot on April 19th, 1830, nor indeed the January 28th, 1842 purported general surrender in respect of other Ka-nyen-geh-ha-ka Grand River territory conformed to the Governor’s Instructions of May 1st 1812.  Further, said purported “surrenders” bear neither my title’s endorsement, nor indeed the endorsement of any recognized Ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah Principle Chief of the Five Nations.

The Report on the Affairs of the Indian in Canada, 1844, part ii, 142-56 states:

“If the property of these Indians had been properly managed, they would at the present time have been an opulent people.  Of the extensive Tracts which they have surrendered, a large portion has been sold for their benefit, and large quantities of excellent timber have been either sold or pilfered from their lands.  There is at present a sum of £25,733 arising from this source, invested in the British funds – a further sum of £38,000 has been invested upon the Authority of Sir John Colborne in the Grand River Navigation Company, in which they hold three fourths of the Stock.  This investment which was made by the Lieutenant Governor, in the expectation that it would not only yield an early profit, but greatly enhance the value of the remainder of the Indian Lands, has proved very unfortunate.  It has absorbed all their funds, for the last Seven Years, leaving no surplus for distribution in money or provisions, as formally…”  See: “The Past and Present Condition of the Six Nations”, 1842 [P.R.O., C.O. 42, v. 515, Report on the Affairs of the Indians in Canada, 1844, part ii, 142-56]


Brantford was incorporated as a town in 1847. I understand that on November 6th, 1848, The Grand River Navigation Company officially opened the canal and commercial navigation of the Grand River for a distance of fifty seven miles from Brantford to Dunnville was made possible. My people contend that this change contributed monumentally to the growth of Brantford’s corporate expansion and industrial wealth.   We contend further that the wholesale theft of our natural resources including timber occurred between the period of 1784, through the 18th and 19th centuries by which time Brantford would become not only the third largest exporter, but also the third largest manufacturing centre for exported goods in all of Canada, after only Toronto and Montreal.  Until the 1980s Brantford capitalists prospered and battled for our resources and land.  This gave rise to a booming industrial city, boasting the highest paid factory wages in Ontario, including the auto industry – but by the end of 1988 Brantford began to lose its most significant industries, and unemployment in the city sky-rocketed to 24%.

I am advised that the Town of Brantford foreclosed on the Grand River Navigation Company in 1861 and the upper canal system was sold to Alfred Watts in 1875 for $1. He, in turn, set up a small dynamo at the locks on Locks Road and, by 1885, I am told that certain businesses and streets were lit with Brantford’s own hydro electric power generated by the natural force of the Grand River. This power plant was the first in Ontario. I understand that the company passed through several stages until May 15th, 1911, when hydro from DeCew Falls began servicing Brantford. Indeed the (November 1901) Industrial Recorder of Canada published the following statement:

“The opening of the canal was undoubtedly one of the chief factors in the early prosperity of Brantford, as it was for several years the only available avenue through which the produce of the district could reach the outside market, besides contributing to the establishment of mills and factories along the river.” Pg. 4

I wish to formally request an accounting of the City’s dealings with the Grand River Navigation Company and the commencement of a dialogue between our Peoples for the purpose of moving forward in respect of this matter.


Collection counsel have advised our commercial collectors to seek our instructions in respect of moving the claim forward in a March 14th, 2013 communication in response to Corporation of the City of Brantford Assistant City Solicitor Kimberly A. Farrington’s December 27th, 2012 WITHOUT PREJUDICE letter to our collection counsel RE: Mohawks of Grand River – Corporation of the City of Brantford Claim No. 774719.

Understand that given the circumstances, essentially, we intend to put the City on notice that given its position as set out within its assistant solicitor’s December 27th, 2012 correspondence letter, that is to say that the City deems responsibility for Grand River Mohawk lease / arrears claims against the city lay with the Federal Government, and given that the City at the same times denies indebtedness to the Grand River Mohawks, there is no alternative other than to register the Grand River Mohawk’s Haldimand interest formally.

I trust that this Council, and indeed the residents of Brantford agree to halt the liquidation / development / corruption of contested Haldimand Lands within City boundaries in respect of the above-noted parcels until such time as our appeal / claims are addressed.  In such a scenario, and with an undertaking to this effect, we would not feel compelled to exercise our rights in respect of preservation of assets against the City.

Further to the foregoing, I advise that the complicit pollution and corruption of our lands and waters at the hand of the City will also require engagement and redress without further delay.  The City-operated Mohawk Street landfill is in fact a polluted dump within vital Grand River wetlands under claim which is somehow operated currently as a corporate revenue source by, and for, the City.

To be clear, I make no hesitation in recommending the appointment of a receiver in these drastic circumstances in the regrettable event that this Council fails to rise to the occasion of adequately addressing my bona fide concerns as outlined in meaningful fashion.

Rule 375 of the Federal Court provides that on motion, a judge may appoint a receiver in any proceeding and an order under subsection (1) shall set out the remuneration to be paid to, and the amount of security to be given by, the receiver.  Rule 377 provides that on motion, the Court may make an order for the custody or preservation of property that is, or will be, the subject-matter of a proceeding or as to which a question may arise therein. Such interlocutory injunctions are granted with a view to preserving the status quo so that the subject matter of the litigation is not destroyed or irreversibly altered before trial by some act of the proposed Defendant.

As guardians of these lands for my people and their posterity forever, I must therefore look to the City today as a proposed Defendant who’s net assets, ability to pay, means or sources of revenue, and past conduct (including bad faith) command that prudent steps be now taken, as provided in law, in order to ensure that those resources will be available after a judgment has been obtained to recover whatever amount or property or other consideration the court may grant in the event. Accordingly, in addition to the undertaking requested, I request a meeting with city representatives in order to discuss these matters and to examine mutually agreeable options outside of litigation.

My people’s long standing and historic relationship with the City over time will require many years to in order to become well again.  In the meantime, we will be conducting a complete and comprehensive enquiry to obtain all relevant documents in order to cover the nature of the claim and this Council’s potential exposure to liabilities.  I remain confident that by engaging issues in a mutually optimistic spirit of moving forward, our sides may to some better understanding of what the Two Row Wampum means to each of us in today’s context, in particular:

·       Inclusive prosperity, which involves forging a prosperity that includes all;

·       Environmental prosperity, which emphasizes that our collective well-being involves environmental balance including sustainable economic models;

·       Engagement with my people in order to facilitate representation and enhanced participation in decisions moving forward; and,

·      Mutual respect and non-interference within respective internal affairs.

In closing, I trust that Prince Philip’s visit to Toronto earlier this year, and in particular, his breakfast reception meeting with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Lieutenant–Governor David Onley at Queen’s Park in Toronto shall serve to mark a new chapter in Crown-Onkwehon:we relations.  Indeed, I have copied this notice to Provincial Development Facilitator Paula Dill, Brant M.P.P. Dave Levac, and others, in order that each may be aware of the facts as they stand, as a precursor to imminent formal engagement with Imperial, Federal and Provincial officials.  I expect to engage all relevant parties in the hopes of commencing resolution discussions in advance of U.N. Special Rapporteur James Anaya’s upcoming county visit to Canada and our anticipated meeting.

In Peace,

[Original signed & sealed by:]

OHREREKÓ:WA (Edwin Ted Squire Hill)
Principle Chief – Ka-nyen-geh-ha-ka (Mohawk) Wolf Clan

Copies to:
Bernard Valcourt, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Carolyn Bennett, Liberal Critic for Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development

Jean Crowder, NDP Critic for Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development

Paula Dill, Provincial Development Facilitator – Ministry of Infrastructure

Dave Levac, M.P.P. – Brant

James Anaya, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

John Oddi, President, Brantford Regional Real Estate Association

Phil Dorner, President, Ontario Real Estate Association

Richard Payne, Morrison and Payne Barristers and Solicitors

2013 june 5 teka - seeking a new way2013 june 5 teka - seeking a new way 2

 Industrial Recorder of Canada (November 1901) Pg. 4

Industrial Recorder of Canada (Nov. 1901) Pg. 4


Unity Gathering at Kanata a Success: Will to work together prevailed!

onikońhra otsire re kati Lanadahere (Spiritual Fire - Brantford)

Onikońhra otsire re kati Lanadahere
(Spiritual Fire – Kanata)

Thanks very much to all who participated in our unity gathering which was hosted by the Mohawk Workers yesterday at Kanata.  We had leaders and interested people of all nations from Zimbabwe to B.C. take part either on-line or in-person.

I would also like to give a special thanks to my comrad and friend, former MP / Cabinet Minister for State of Public and Interactive Affairs (former Minister of Post and Telecommunications, former Minister of Information) and founder / chairman of the Zimbabwe Foundation for Sustainable Development, Cde Chen Chimutengwende who joined the  event remotely from Harare, Zimbabwe.

Spiritual Fire Burns for Onkwehon:we and all

We did, indeed have a fruitful and productive gathering. I am thankful the weather cooperated, our fire burned, and so many different groups participated  including those from local (Brantford) – and even as far away as London city councils, industry leaders, community elders, city / county / 6-Nations reservation residents, the Men’s fire, and of course Ohrerekó:wa, the Ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah Wolf Clan Principle Chief who was also with us.

Those present continue to express their appreciation for an opportunity to hear from the many who had taken time to come together – and also to see that overall, those here yesterday seemed to agree on what were raised as key issues. All and all, we had a great showing & the desire / will to work together prevailed! I look forward to talking more with others as they take an interest in what is happening. See this week’s Teka Times or our website for full details over the coming days.  JB


Now our minds are one.
Éhtho niiohtónha ‘k ne onkwa’nikón:ra